Patrick.net

Proving the Teabaggers are full of crap in a single graph

By iwog   Follow   Tue, 1 Mar 2011, 7:55am   13,329 views   239 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Total US Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP

Graph source: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/
Data source: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/past_years.html

Viewing Comments 1-40 of 239     Next »     Last »     See most liked comments

1. EightBall Follow Befriend 12 threads 495 comments

   1   8:30am Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Not to get picky, but does this include state and local taxes that are "unfunded mandates"? Does this include social security and medicare? Would also be interesting to see a breakdown of people actually paying taxes and those that get EITC. This graph is interesting but when you shift a significant amount of people to being "on the take" the money has to come from somewhere and % of GDP is pretty much meaningless. In other words, if you keep shifting the tax burden up the food chain and suddenly a percentage of people are no longer PAYING but are on the RECEIVING end, what does graph really mean? Perhaps a more meaningful example of how this is flawed would be this.... The price of a gallon of milk was X. The gubmint decides that 50% of people get milk for free and everyone else has to pay 2X. When you divide the gallons/recipients, it doesn't look like the cost went up at all, does it?

2. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,648 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   2   8:42am Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   EightBall says Does this include social security and medicare? There's a lovely graph that includes SSI and Medicare. Basically it shows how taxes were piled on the worker while at the same time taxes were cut from the upper class. Notice that corporate taxes (dividends, CEO bonuses & options, offshore tax shelters) and misc. taxes (estate tax, AMT, capital gains) decrease to offset increases in social taxes. Essentially rich people who need tax cuts the least got them, and working people who need tax cuts the most paid more. US Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP by Component

3. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,718 comments

   3   9:04am Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   EightBall says In other words, if you keep shifting the tax burden up the food chain We've actually been slowly shifting the tax burden DOWN the food chain... (as a % of income)

4. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 209 threads 4,509 comments Davis, CA

   4   9:11am Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Yes yes but you see.... if Richy Rich gets a tax break he will hire more people and spread the wealth. Unemployment will go to nearly zero and wages and benefits will shoot up as all this wealth naturally trickles down. Wait until you see the results of our NEXT Five Year Plan citizen, this time it will surely work and it will blow your socks off.

5. EightBall Follow Befriend 12 threads 495 comments

   5   11:39am Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I'm not talking about Richy Rich - the max number that SS is paid on has gone up pretty damn fast - I am guessing faster than inflation but I don't have the numbers in front of me. That isn't a tax on Richy - it's a tax increase on (for the past ten years) everyone in the 60-100k range that isn't self-employed. The second graph that Iwog put out there seems to support this. SS hits everyone and my point isn't that I love/hate the rich but if SS isn't included in the first graph it is meaningless. tatupu70 says We’ve actually been slowly shifting the tax burden DOWN the food chain… (as a % of income) I guess it depends on your perspective - I guess you can say it has been shifting down from the wealthy and up to the middle. The middle is getting it from both sides. You can only shift the tax burden down to the point where people are actually paying tax. What is the percentage of people who pay zero (or get a rebate of money they never paid) anyway? I hear the number 50% thrown around but don't know if that is true or not. Vicente says Yes yes but you see…. if Richy Rich gets a tax break he will hire more people and spread the wealth. Unemployment will go to nearly zero and wages and benefits will shoot up as all this wealth naturally trickles down. Wait until you see the results of our NEXT Five Year Plan citizen, this time it will surely work and it will blow your socks off. I am guessing this means you think I'm a trickle down neocon. The only thing that trickles down does is pee on the peasants. It is COMPLETELY ridiculous that taxes as a % of income on the TOP end are where they are. Raising the top-end rate will accomplish nothing until the tax code is uprooted and replaced with something that doesn't have 50 years worth of loopholes. It is equally ridiculous that a significant number of people pay zero income taxes. And you wonder why the people in the middle are pissed off!

6. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,496 comments

   6   11:45am Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   EightBall says Raising the top-end rate will accomplish nothing until the tax code is uprooted and replaced with something that doesn’t have 50 years worth of loopholes. So then why don't we just do that, and then if the top-end actual payments do not improve we can start fixing the rest of the tax code. In this case, do not demand that the fix should be done all at once.

7. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

   7   11:49am Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   EightBall says Raising the top-end rate will accomplish nothing Seemed to work fine 1994-2000.

8. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,648 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   8   12:00pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   SF ace says “It is equally ridiculous that a significant number of people pay zero income taxes.” 0 taxes are not the problem, but negative tax (refundable credit for earned income credit, etc.) is simply unacceptable. I agree with the elimination of the earned income credit, but I also think that citizens under a certain wage should simply be exempt from income taxes. $30,000 a year sounds about right. It's an outrage that someone like Dan Duncan is allowed to leave his heirs $9 billion (much of which was untaxed capital gains) while someone struggling to make ends meet earning $30,000 a year must file federal income taxes and send a check.

9. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,718 comments

   9   12:02pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   EightBall says It is equally ridiculous that a significant number of people pay zero income taxes. And you wonder why the people in the middle are pissed off! The problem is this group doesn't make any money. I don't understand this argument--anyone is free to quit their current job and instead flip burgers. You probably won't pay any taxes. Do you think you'll be better off? Until we figure out a way to create more well paying jobs, complaining that poor people don't pay taxes seems a little ridiculous.

10. MarkInSF Follow Befriend 14 threads 1,118 comments

    10   1:35pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Yeah, taxation has been fairly flat, but spending hasn't been: For the same period (fed + state + local): It's been fairly flat since the 80's but a huge spike due to stimulus & GDP breaking it's growth trend.

11. msilenus Follow Befriend (3) 8 threads 335 comments

    11   2:36pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Just a note to my fellow liberals, with iWog specifically in mind: Can we stop calling them teabaggers? To the extent they gain power within the Republican party, they're doing it at the expense of the neocons and social conservatives. It seems to me that fiscal conservatism is a better thing to be debating against than invasions, reversing the progress of domestic liberty, or creeping us toward Christian theocracy. Just imagine: if we can convince them that raising taxes actually raises government revenue, we can undo basically all the damage that Reagan wrought upon conservatism. Maybe have some sane debates. Too pie-in-the-sky?

12. Nomograph Follow Befriend (1) 104 threads 2,851 comments

    12   3:22pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Mr.Fantastic says Does someone earning $30,000 actually have to send a check? No, I'm sure you are exempt.

13. APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich Follow Befriend (28) 182 threads 4,601 comments Premium

    13   3:25pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   What could anyone expect. The states thinks it is a progressive country because it does not give the rich hunting licenses to simply drive around and shoot the poor and let their pets feast on the victim's bodies for their entertainment.

14. Nomograph Follow Befriend (1) 104 threads 2,851 comments

    14   4:43pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   SF ace says Nomograph says Mr.Fantastic says Does someone earning $30,000 actually have to send a check? No, I’m sure you are exempt. 30K in earned income with two childrens is $3,232 in Earned income tax credit and another $1,400+ in refundable additional child tax credit. So income tax is around negative $4,700. The IRS sends a check to you without paying $1. Great. Now Mr. Fantastic gets government welfare.

15. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,648 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    15   4:46pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   msilenus says Just a note to my fellow liberals, with iWog specifically in mind: Can we stop calling them teabaggers? To the extent they gain power within the Republican party, they’re doing it at the expense of the neocons and social conservatives. It seems to me that fiscal conservatism is a better thing to be debating against than invasions, reversing the progress of domestic liberty, or creeping us toward Christian theocracy. Just imagine: if we can convince them that raising taxes actually raises government revenue, we can undo basically all the damage that Reagan wrought upon conservatism. Maybe have some sane debates. Too pie-in-the-sky? How can you respect a group that advocates cutting taxes, cutting spending, balancing the budget, increasing spending for the military, and keeping SSI and Medicare intact? You might as well start the Magical Fairy Party and put free magic ice cream machines on your platform. Almost everything the Tea Party wants cancels out leaving them little more than pawns for the aristocracy. Therefore I don't think there's one shred of sincerity in the entire movement. It's about hating Democrats for the benefit of entrenched free-market Republicans. To the extent that the Tea Party is challenging the Republican establishment, they are only doing so to make it MORE radical and LESS responsive to the people. In my opinion it's all bad. There's no good news about the Tea Party.

16. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,718 comments

    16   5:25pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Nomograph says SF ace says Nomograph says Mr.Fantastic says Does someone earning $30,000 actually have to send a check? No, I’m sure you are exempt. 30K in earned income with two childrens is $3,232 in Earned income tax credit and another $1,400+ in refundable additional child tax credit. So income tax is around negative $4,700. The IRS sends a check to you without paying $1. Great. Now Mr. Fantastic gets government welfare. I'm not sure. The equation differs when your parents can claim you as a dependent, doesn't it?

17. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    17   6:51pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Iwog seems to be desperate to change the discussion from his infamous "housing hit bottom in 2009 and it's all up from here" to "Teabaggers are really, really baaaaddddd." LOL

18. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 209 threads 4,509 comments Davis, CA

    18   10:09pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Like today's gem from Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips? Tea Party Leader: Restricting Voting to Property Owners ‘Makes a Lot of Sense’ The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.

19. Nomograph Follow Befriend (1) 104 threads 2,851 comments

    19   10:10pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   RayAmerica says Iwog seems to be desperate to change the discussion Actually, that's what *you* are trying to do. This is the Miscellaneous forum, pal.

20. Nomograph Follow Befriend (1) 104 threads 2,851 comments

    20   10:12pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Vicente says Like today’s gem from Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips, who apparently thinks renters should not be allowed to vote: Well, at least that would take nutjob birthers like shrekgrinch out of the equation.

21. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,210 comments

    21   10:28pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   SF ace says or a family with 2 children(s), that is 0 tax terrortory as standard deduction of 11K and four exemption 14K = 25K. Taxable income of 5K for a family of four is $500 in tax, which is easily washed out by the child tax credit. further 30K in earned income with two childrens is $3,232 in Earned income tax credit and another $1,400+ in refundable additional child tax credit. So income tax is around negative $4,700. The IRS sends a check to you without paying $1. Let's not forget they are paying social security and medicare, so their overall taxes are not really negative. Just the income tax part of it. I know that's what you were talking about, but some people forget. I hope they are making some cash on the side, because I don't know how a family of four is going to live on 30K.

22. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,210 comments

    22   10:30pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   APOCALYPSEFUCK says What could anyone expect. The states thinks it is a progressive country because it does not give the rich hunting licenses to simply drive around and shoot the poor and let their pets feast on the victim’s bodies for their entertainment. You have to like this guy.

23. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,210 comments

    23   10:42pm Tue 1 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   msilenus says Too pie-in-the-sky? Yes. Republicans love their money. As do all the powerful. They will reverse engineer reasons to keep taxes too low until way after it's too late. It's sad but true. I have often voiced the view that higher taxes on high income make sense regardless of how much it increases revenues (although it would). Because it forces the powerful to make tough choices about spending. Including such things as military spending and corporate welfare. The two things that could save us are campaign finance reform (for real), and higher taxes on high income. Those two things alone would make a profound difference in this country.

24. EightBall Follow Befriend 12 threads 495 comments

    24   6:39am Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   justme says EightBall says Raising the top-end rate will accomplish nothing until the tax code is uprooted and replaced with something that doesn’t have 50 years worth of loopholes. So then why don’t we just do that, and then if the top-end actual payments do not improve we can start fixing the rest of the tax code. In this case, do not demand that the fix should be done all at once. Because closing all of the loopholes isn't going to happen. It's like whack-a-mole with the money shifting about. Troy says EightBall says Raising the top-end rate will accomplish nothing Seemed to work fine 1994-2000. It works great when the tax is retroactive and most of the people have no chance to react. It is hard for a dead person to travel back and time and put their money into a tax haven. But you can't do this every year. I think you are also forgetting the money created out of thin air in the dotcom bubble. tatupu70 says EightBall says It is equally ridiculous that a significant number of people pay zero income taxes. And you wonder why the people in the middle are pissed off! The problem is this group doesn’t make any money. I don’t understand this argument–anyone is free to quit their current job and instead flip burgers. You probably won’t pay any taxes. Do you think you’ll be better off? Until we figure out a way to create more well paying jobs, complaining that poor people don’t pay taxes seems a little ridiculous. I agree about the jobs wholeheartedly. But you've got to get people to have SOME skin in the game. I'm not talking about making them pay some ridiculous amount - but they need to be contributing something. If what I hear that 50% of people pay no "income" taxes (anyone with a job pays SS/Medicrap) is true, I cringe. Half of the population shouldn't be paying for the other half. There is obviously a bottom end that needs to be taken care of in some form or fashion. I just don't think it is more than 15-20% of the population. I'm not for punishing people for having a lot of children but having them means you have to pay for them. Why we continue to perform social engineering through the tax code is beyond my comprehension. Taxes are for funding the government which should 1) take care of those that can't take care of themselves (not WON'T take care of themselves, but literally CAN'T) 2) build common infrastructure for the benefit of society and 3) Defense of the country. I'm sure you can come up with some others that most would agree with and probably some that are far more controversial but encouraging people to take on massive debt on a house (an example of social engineering) should probably NOT be on the list. The left needs to get some better PR because they are on the correct side of the issue on tax equality. They appear to most to want to punish people that have a lot of money. The argument needs to be presented as a percentage of income NOT total dollar figures. It doesn't SEEM fair that one person pays $10,000,000 in taxes and another person pays $5000. But when you change it around that one person is paying 3% and the other is paying 10% (just as an example...don't beat me up for pulling numbers out of the sky) then the picture is completely different. The screwed up tax code and the way SS/Medicrap is taken makes it even more confusing for the average Joe. Throw in all of the fees, state and local taxes, add-in taxes (like built-in tax on gasoline), and you've got an impossible system of trying to figure out who-is-paying-for-what-and-when-and-why. The right is correct in the view of government efficiency (aside from their do-not-touch-the-military zeal). Anyone that has worked for the government KNOWS that government accounting rewards overspending and punishes efficiency and cost savings. What's really screwed up is that the right "wins" with their tax argument (when they are wrong) and the left "wins" on their never-ending support of big brother government which is also wrong.

25. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,718 comments

    25   8:48am Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says The tax rate has been as high as 91% and all we got was the same average income tax take as a percentage of GDP as we did in other years. The income tax turnip can’t be squeezed for much more blood than it already is. The conclusion you draw from the graph is completely wrong. Also, have you looked at the distribution of wealth under the different tax approaches?

26. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,648 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    26   9:06am Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says all you have really done is posted a graph that shows how Iwog is so full of crap, instead. It would probably kill you to explain why so I wont ask.

27. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,648 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    27   10:08am Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Unfricking believable. The data speaks for itself yet you don’t get it. At all. Instead, you cling to this total fallacy that total tax revenue is tied directly to income tax rates — when your own graph proves that wrong [because your own graph is what Hauser observed originally]. I make the correlation that you believe said fantasy due to the other graph in your latest post you gave in your reply to me. You know, the one that shows the top 0.01% income earners? Are you that dense, iwog? So I will spell it out AGAIN..what Hauser originally concluded form the very graph you posted: We can raise income tax rates to the moon like we did in the past but it won’t make A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE towards significantly improving the amount of income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP collected. But what it will do is reduce the percentage of the tax revenues collected that the upper percentiles ‘contribute’. Now, the top 20% of earners provide over 75% of the income tax revenues collected. The bottom 50% contribute ZILCH in income taxes collected. That is pretty damn progressive as far as who contributes to the money pot the government collects ever year from income taxation. But it has nothing to do with the total amount as a percentage of GDP the government collects. Nothing, as your own graph demonstrates. But if you want, we can go back to 91% rates…where the top earners contributed around 8% of total income tax revenues as well. Johnny Lunchbucket footed most of the bill back then. Yeah, go ahead. Won’t break the 20% of GDP barrier, will be highly regressive but hey! You get to ‘feel better’ and fool yourself some more in disbelieving the truth of the matter. The only other way for the government to gain additional revenue is from streams that don’t involve the income tax..like I said and history backs me up on. That is why the Euroweenies had to adopt the VAT on top of their income tax..and why Congress has raided the SS/Medicare trust fund all these years. What does Hauser or anything else you write have to do with my assertion that the Tea Party is full of crap when they hysterically scream that taxes are too high?? Americans on average are paying the same tax rates as they were under Eisenhower. I've made one main assertion in this thread and I said nothing about Hauser. So again........in a single paragraph.......why am I full of crap?

28. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,648 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    28   10:13am Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   shrekgrinch says But if you want, we can go back to 91% rates…where the top earners contributed around 8% of total income tax revenues as well. Because there were the same percentage of ultra-rich people in 1946 as there are in 2011 right? Otherwise your comment would be complete nonsense and disingenuous as hell.

29. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,718 comments

    29   10:47am Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says And one more denialist. The graph COMPLETELY is representative of Hauser’s Law. How can I get completely wrong conclusions..especially with the subject line of this post is totally class warfare BS that implies that we should have raised tax rates that flies in the face of the graph data’s conclusion (again Hauser’s Law)? All the graph shows is that tax revenues have varied from ~13% to ~20% of GDP. Any other conclusions you draw are not supported by the graph--they are your deluded opinion. It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be... shrekgrinch says tatupu70 says Also, have you looked at the distribution of wealth under the different tax approaches? What does that have to do with ‘Total Tax Revenue as Percentage of GDP’? Nothing. Nothing at all. It has everything to do with your assertion that raising marginal tax rates will have no effect on total tax revenue. Why don't you think a little before replying....

30. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,718 comments

    30   10:51am Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says But what it will do is reduce the percentage of the tax revenues collected that the upper percentiles ‘contribute’. Now, the top 20% of earners provide over 75% of the income tax revenues collected. The bottom 50% contribute ZILCH in income taxes collected. That is pretty damn progressive as far as who contributes to the money pot the government collects ever year from income taxation. But it has nothing to do with the total amount as a percentage of GDP the government collects. Nothing, as your own graph demonstrates. But if you want, we can go back to 91% rates…where the top earners contributed around 8% of total income tax revenues as well. Johnny Lunchbucket footed most of the bill back then. Yeah, go ahead. Won’t break the 20% of GDP barrier, will be highly regressive but hey! You get to ‘feel better’ and fool yourself some more in disbelieving the truth of the matter. You seriously don't see how the distribution of wealth is important? When 5% of the people are getting 90% of the income, of course they are paying the vast majority of the tax.

31. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,564 comments

    31   10:52am Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Is shrek really trying to try to sell Hauser again? There was a long post about the bs of Hauser last year, just goes to show a bad idea never dies.

32. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,564 comments

    32   3:18pm Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   shrekgrinch says bob2356 says There was a long post about the bs of Hauser last year, just goes to show a bad idea never dies. Really? Because the graph Iwog posted sure does prove it. Huh? The only thing the chart proves is that when politicians lower someone's taxes they raise someone else's taxes to make up for it. Since the mantra since Reagan has been lower the top tax rate I wonder who paid more?

33. simchaland Follow Befriend (6) 10 threads 1,234 comments Oakland, CA

    33   3:51pm Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Vicente says Yes yes but you see…. if Richy Rich gets a tax break he will hire more people and spread the wealth. Unemployment will go to nearly zero and wages and benefits will shoot up as all this wealth naturally trickles down. Wait until you see the results of our NEXT Five Year Plan citizen, this time it will surely work and it will blow your socks off. That's right Dorothy. Click your heels three times and say, "I believe in Voodoo Economics. I believe in Voodoo Economics. I believe in Voodoo Economics..." (To those of you too young to know or who are too old to remember Daddy Bush (George H. W. Bush Sr.) said that "Trickle Down Economics" a.k.a. "Supply Side Economics" a.k.a. "Reaganomics" was "Voodoo Economics" when running against Ronald Reagan during the Republican Primary in 1979-1980.) Here's the pdf thanks to the LA Times. Here are some notable quotes from then candidate George H. W. Bush Sr.: "...Reagan made "a list of phoney promises" on defense, energy, and economic policy. And he labeled Reagan's tax cut proposal "voo-doo economic policy" and "economic madness."" "...Bush hopes, he said, to get Pennsylvania voters to think of him as "a guy who is a conservative but a reasonable fellow. He's not going to promise that you can cut $210 billion in taxes and still put the budget in balance..." "...And he's not going to say that you can burden the states with all of these welfare programs..." History has proven that he was, in fact, correct. Unfortunately he bought in to these disasterous policies once he was Vice President then President. GHWB was a prophet before was shackled to the wooly wackiness that surrounded Reagan and the development of the Reagan Economic Mythology.

34. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,648 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    34   4:05pm Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   shrekgrinch says ) You simply posted that graph and said, “Proving Teabaggers are full of crap in a single graph”. No assertion is in there. Congratulations! You win a cookie! Saying Iwog is full of crap, then admitting Iwog didn't actually assert anything beyond the fact that teabaggers are full of crap makes you look kind of lame. I'm not sure, but I think you're having a heated argument with yourself on that point.

35. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,718 comments

    35   4:58pm Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Nope. Not opinion. Math doesn’t lie. You know what averages are? The mean? That is what you get when you add up all the tax revenue percentages of GDP for each year and divide by the number of years. Or did you just drop out of junior high when that was taught to the most of us? Shrek-- You're not really this dumb. If I have a 91% tax rate on "rich" people and a 25% tax rate on everyone else, and then change it to 60% for everyone you might get roughly the same tax revenue. (of course this depends a lot of the income distribution). That DOES NOT prove that if I would have received the same tax revenue if I held the 91% rate and raised everyone else to 60%, now does it? Of course not. Your assertion is simply not proven by Iwog's graph. You need much, much more information to prove that.

36. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,718 comments

    36   5:02pm Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   shrekgrinch says You asked: “Also, have you looked at the distribution of wealth under the different tax approaches?[VAT,LVT being those different tax approaches I had mentioned]” And I responded accurately: “What does that have to do with ‘Total Tax Revenue as Percentage of GDP’? Nothing. Nothing at all.” Which is correct. Actually, it's not. shrekgrinch says The flaws in your ‘arguments’ consistently are the chronic denial of certain unalienable facts: 1) You can’t get more out of the ‘rich’ via income taxes except when utilized to promote incentives I've seen no evidence that this is true. You can keep saying it here, but unfortunately, that doesn't make it true.

37. Nomograph Follow Befriend (1) 104 threads 2,851 comments

    37   5:30pm Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says But you still cling to static realities –which are totally unrealistic in actuality–and then try to peddle it to those of us who see that BS for that it really is. Shrekgrinch is a Birther. He really shouldn't try to lecture others on peddling BS.

38. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,210 comments

    38   7:33pm Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says But what it will do is reduce the percentage of the tax revenues collected that the upper percentiles ‘contribute’. Now, the top 20% of earners provide over 75% of the income tax revenues collected. The bottom 50% contribute ZILCH in income taxes collected. Shrek or Ms. Coulter, whatever your name is, it seems like you confuse income tax with all federal taxes. Hausers law (which I don't buy ("but it's a law !!!")) apparently refers to the latter. "It's a law, it's a law." Seems more like an observation over an extremely short period of time. Here are some of my observations. If you would consider Iwog's second graph(s) above, you will see a break down of different federal taxes. Now it is true that the increases in social security are necessary to keep the fund solvent for the next few decades, and they will raise it again for the same reason. But that money is also getting spent, right ?(borrowed against and then spent - same thing). Btw, if the 19% includes the significant social security and medicare that lower income people pay, then why say they pay zero taxes? What are you talking about, the taxes that "Hausers law" refers to (all fed taxes), or just income taxes ? It seems like when you cite that 19% number you are referring to all the different taxes, but then when you talk about how much low income people paid in 1950 versus now, or what low income people pay now, you are just referring to income taxes. Make up your mind, or maybe you just interchange the two depending on what's convenient ? Anyway, back to the second graph(s). I basically see income tax both corporate and personal being replaced by social security tax (FICA). That is, of the 19% (or whatever you think the magic number is), far more now comes from social security (which is independent of income much above 100K). By your reasoning, the reason why increasing taxes on the 3rd, 4th, 5th (etc and >) hundred thousand in income can not add to total tax revenues is because we are taxing the first hundred K more than we ever have (which really is a different kind of tax, it's a contribution to pension and disability etc). I am focusing on taxes versus GDP. ( I can hear it now, you won't comprehend what I'm saying and go in to another one of your emotional rants. I'm a stupid poopy head who doesn't deserve an intelligent response.) This is such a charged subject for you. Settle down Ann,.... breathe.

39. LarryPatrickMaloney Follow Befriend (13) 60 threads 166 comments Mountain View, CA LarryPatrickMaloney's website

    39   9:54pm Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Dumb ass iWog. This graph was recently shown on Stossell. It shows aggregate Tax REVENUES, not rates you moran. What it proves, is that now matter what, the nation as a WHOLE finds a way to keep its net tax expenditure, less than 20% gdp.

40. Extropico Follow Befriend 11 comments Sarasota, FL

    40   10:07pm Wed 2 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   What this really demonstrates is that spending growth has been much faster then revenue growth. Spending growth is the primary issue and is not addressed by a chart on tax rates. In addition, it has been repeatedly averred that arguing on the merits without ad hominem assaults is of value here. Ther sexually laced pejorative of "teabagger" is a most unwelcome and peurile element for a serious erudite colloquy.

Next comments »     Last »