CBO: Tax hikes unnecessary

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hmm.

According to Reuters, President Obama is supporting a plan which includes $1.2 trillion in new revenues  with  $2.55 trillion is supposed savings over 10 years. 

Now, to me that adds up (if we assume the “savings” actually occur), to a total of $3.75 trillion.

According to my calculator, $1.2 trillion is 32 percent of $3.75 trillion.

Now, I had previously pointed out that the revenue enhancements, or to be more honest about it, tax increases would be between one and two trillion.

On the other hand,  Gustaf kept trying to peddle the myth that such revenue enhancements would only amount to 17 percent of the package.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-usa-debt-gang-idUSTRE76I5CK20110719

The plan cited in the article is not Obama's plan, and thus not the plan we were discussing earlier. Furthermore, the plan includes tax-cuts as well as tax hikes which means your math is misleading: "Conrad was quick to say that while there are $1.2 trillion in new revenues, the overall plan envisions a $1.5 trillion tax cut that would be achieved through broad tax reforms."

Gustaf,

Like Obama, you have ducked and dodged continuously.

Like Obama, you want more taxes.

You seem to also agree with Obama that any funds in private hands are "tax expenditures."

So, since you say you don't want to tax Americans to death, just how much higher do you want taxes to go?  Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?

[Gustaf]

Hmm.

According to Reuters, President Obama is supporting a plan which includes $1.2 trillion in new revenues  with  $2.55 trillion is supposed savings over 10 years. 

Now, to me that adds up (if we assume the “savings” actually occur), to a total of $3.75 trillion.

According to my calculator, $1.2 trillion is 32 percent of $3.75 trillion.

Now, I had previously pointed out that the revenue enhancements, or to be more honest about it, tax increases would be between one and two trillion.

On the other hand,  Gustaf kept trying to peddle the myth that such revenue enhancements would only amount to 17 percent of the package.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-usa-debt-gang-idUSTRE76I5CK20110719

The plan cited in the article is not Obama's plan, and thus not the plan we were discussing earlier. Furthermore, the plan includes tax-cuts as well as tax hikes which means your math is misleading: "Conrad was quick to say that while there are $1.2 trillion in new revenues, the overall plan envisions a $1.5 trillion tax cut that would be achieved through broad tax reforms."

Gustaf,

Like Obama, you have ducked and dodged continuously.

Like Obama, you want more taxes.

You seem to also agree with Obama that any funds in private hands are "tax expenditures."

So, since you say you don't want to tax Americans to death, just how much higher do you want taxes to go?  Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?

I've not ducked or dodged anything (you have though, in a rather irritating fashion). I'm not even sure what your third sentence is talking about but I'll assume it's some other irrelevant nonsense.

As regards the exact tax level that the US should have I haven't really studied that issue in sufficient detail to give a precise answer. My broad impression is that the American tax system seems quite mangled and I suspect in dire need of reform. Such a reform should probably aim to cut rates while eliminating the various credits or breaks that currently exist. This is especially true for corporate taxes, where the rate is quite high but the various deductions, etc push down the effective rate. Over the longer term I suspect such reform could cut the effective rate while still bringing in equal revenue.

I also have the impression that things like the capital gains tax could be raised (possibly paired with a cut in regular income tax), because I'm unconvinced that net benefits outweigh negative consequences as such low levels of taxation as currently is the fact in that field.

On the spending side, there could also be a substantial cleaning up. There seems to be quite a bit of frivolous spending on things like farm subsidies and various pork projects. An overhaul of the budget process, moving it to more of a top-down approach would probably do a lot to fix that.

According to wikipedia, all levels of government in the US currently bring in just above a quarter of GDP in revenue while spending close to 40% of GDP. Some of that is cyclical and will disappear by itself. Still I suspect the overall level would probably have to get closer to 30%.

In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Gustaf,

Like Obama, you have ducked and dodged continuously.

Like Obama, you want more taxes.

You seem to also agree with Obama that any funds in private hands are "tax expenditures."

So, since you say you don't want to tax Americans to death, just how much higher do you want taxes to go?  Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?

I've not ducked or dodged anything (you have though, in a rather irritating fashion). I'm not even sure what your third sentence is talking about but I'll assume it's some other irrelevant nonsense.

Gustaf, I'm sure you've noticed that a typical "conversation" with CARL on this topic goes something like this:

CARL: "We need to cut spending!"
       --  "What do you propose be cut?"
CARL: "We need to cut spending!"
       --  "Yeah, I heard you the first time. What do you propose be cut?"
CARL "You want to raise taxes just like Obama does!"

Personally, I'm sick and tired of hypocrites who say we need to cut government spending by a certain amount without saying what they would have government stop doing in order to cut spending by that much.

[CARLHAYDEN]

One of the big frauds perpetrated by frauds like Ernest is that if you cannot establish every penny of reductions in federal expenditures then you are not serious about spending reductions.

This tactic (employed by lefties like Ernest who want to grow the government) dates back to the Gordian Knot. 

Its designed to obfuscate and delay.

Well,. For those unfamiliar will government budgeting, you should start out with a reasonable estimate of receipts under existing law.

Estimates of 2012 receipts are $2,926,400.(http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf.

In fiscal year 2008 ,total outlays amounted to $2,982,554.

So, adopting the expenditure level in 2008 would essentially bring about a balanced budget.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hmm.

According to Reuters, President Obama is supporting a plan which includes $1.2 trillion in new revenues  with  $2.55 trillion is supposed savings over 10 years. 

Now, to me that adds up (if we assume the “savings” actually occur), to a total of $3.75 trillion.

According to my calculator, $1.2 trillion is 32 percent of $3.75 trillion.

Now, I had previously pointed out that the revenue enhancements, or to be more honest about it, tax increases would be between one and two trillion.

On the other hand,  Gustaf kept trying to peddle the myth that such revenue enhancements would only amount to 17 percent of the package.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-usa-debt-gang-idUSTRE76I5CK20110719

The plan cited in the article is not Obama's plan, and thus not the plan we were discussing earlier. Furthermore, the plan includes tax-cuts as well as tax hikes which means your math is misleading: "Conrad was quick to say that while there are $1.2 trillion in new revenues, the overall plan envisions a $1.5 trillion tax cut that would be achieved through broad tax reforms."

Gustaf,

Like Obama, you have ducked and dodged continuously.

Like Obama, you want more taxes.

You seem to also agree with Obama that any funds in private hands are "tax expenditures."

So, since you say you don't want to tax Americans to death, just how much higher do you want taxes to go?  Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?

I've not ducked or dodged anything (you have though, in a rather irritating fashion). I'm not even sure what your third sentence is talking about but I'll assume it's some other irrelevant nonsense.

As regards the exact tax level that the US should have I haven't really studied that issue in sufficient detail to give a precise answer. My broad impression is that the American tax system seems quite mangled and I suspect in dire need of reform. Such a reform should probably aim to cut rates while eliminating the various credits or breaks that currently exist. This is especially true for corporate taxes, where the rate is quite high but the various deductions, etc push down the effective rate. Over the longer term I suspect such reform could cut the effective rate while still bringing in equal revenue.

I also have the impression that things like the capital gains tax could be raised (possibly paired with a cut in regular income tax), because I'm unconvinced that net benefits outweigh negative consequences as such low levels of taxation as currently is the fact in that field.

On the spending side, there could also be a substantial cleaning up. There seems to be quite a bit of frivolous spending on things like farm subsidies and various pork projects. An overhaul of the budget process, moving it to more of a top-down approach would probably do a lot to fix that.

According to wikipedia, all levels of government in the US currently bring in just above a quarter of GDP in revenue while spending close to 40% of GDP. Some of that is cyclical and will disappear by itself. Still I suspect the overall level would probably have to get closer to 30%.

In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.

Well,

First let me thank you for partially responding to my questions.

Second, let me educate you.  The term "tax expenditure" is used by people like you who believe that any funds left in private hands (not seized by the government) is a "tax expenditure."

Third, of course the tax structure is mangled since the most profitable route to making/retaining wealth is to obtain a tax preference (often coupled with a subsidy).  The aircraft manufacturers got such a preferenace as part of Porkulus (which I opposed and I seem to remember you supported).

Fourth, there is considerable improvement on the expenditure side from state and local governments in most of the United States (Illinois being a notable exception).  However, the federal government continues its wild spree of spending unabated.

Fifth, for a little math, increasing the aggregate tax rate to 40% from the current approximately 25% would be an increase of 60%!  Now, I have no doubt you have no problem with such a massive tax increase but Americans will. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One of the big frauds perpetrated by frauds like Ernest is that if you cannot establish every penny of reductions in federal expenditures then you are not serious about spending reductions.

CARL, I have yet to see you establish even the first dime of every dollar of would be needed to balance the budget by spending cuts alone, let alone every penny.

Besides, it is generally expected that if you are going to assert something, it's up to you to prove it.  You assert that the budget can be balanced by spending cuts alone, so I'm asking you to prove it by providing a proposed set of cuts to achieve that goal. If there is any fraud going on here, it is your continued evasion of this point.

Well,. For those unfamiliar will government budgeting, you should start out with a reasonable estimate of receipts under existing law.

Estimates of 2012 receipts are $2,926,400.(http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf.

In fiscal year 2008 ,total outlays amounted to $2,982,554.

So, adopting the expenditure level in 2008 would essentially bring about a balanced budget.

CARL, your math is dishonest in so many ways it is possible that you might not be aware of all of them.

1. The economy is projected to be worse in FY2012 than in FY2008 and a number of Federal programs, such as unemployment insurance, Medicaid, food stamps, etc., will if they are working as intended, will be spending more money to achieve their function.

2. Bush kept a good deal of military spending off-budget by putting the operating costs of Iraq and Afghanistan into supplement bills, even tho the spending was totally predictable by then.

3. Inflation, which has continued its tendency to be highest in health care, which affects both Medicare and Medicaid.

4. There are more people drawing Social Security and Medicare right now.

In short CARL, even if one were to turn back the clock on Federal programs and reset them to all be exactly as they were at the start of FY 2008, the FY 2012 budget would still be significantly higher than that of FY 2008.  So adopting the expenditure levels of FY 2008 for FY 2012 would require government programs and functions to be cut, so where do you want to make the cuts?

I'll even make things easy for you and let you assume every change to Federal law since the start of FY 2008 is wiped off the table and all you have to do is finish off the remainder of what needs to be cut to bring FY 2012 spending down to what it was for FY 2008.  What do you cut first?

[CARLHAYDEN]

One of the big frauds perpetrated by frauds like Ernest is that if you cannot establish every penny of reductions in federal expenditures then you are not serious about spending reductions.

CARL, I have yet to see you establish even the first dime of every dollar of would be needed to balance the budget by spending cuts alone, let alone every penny.

Besides, it is generally expected that if you are going to assert something, it's up to you to prove it.  You assert that the budget can be balanced by spending cuts alone, so I'm asking you to prove it by providing a proposed set of cuts to achieve that goal. If there is any fraud going on here, it is your continued evasion of this point.

Well,. For those unfamiliar will government budgeting, you should start out with a reasonable estimate of receipts under existing law.

Estimates of 2012 receipts are $2,926,400.(http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf.

In fiscal year 2008 ,total outlays amounted to $2,982,554.

So, adopting the expenditure level in 2008 would essentially bring about a balanced budget.

CARL, your math is dishonest in so many ways it is possible that you might not be aware of all of them.

1. The economy is projected to be worse in FY2012 than in FY2008 and a number of Federal programs, such as unemployment insurance, Medicaid, food stamps, etc., will if they are working as intended, will be spending more money to achieve their function.

2. Bush kept a good deal of military spending off-budget by putting the operating costs of Iraq and Afghanistan into supplement bills, even tho the spending was totally predictable by then.

3. Inflation, which has continued its tendency to be highest in health care, which affects both Medicare and Medicaid.

4. There are more people drawing Social Security and Medicare right now.

In short CARL, even if one were to turn back the clock on Federal programs and reset them to all be exactly as they were at the start of FY 2008, the FY 2012 budget would still be significantly higher than that of FY 2008.  So adopting the expenditure levels of FY 2008 for FY 2012 would require government programs and functions to be cut, so where do you want to make the cuts?

I'll even make things easy for you and let you assume every change to Federal law since the start of FY 2008 is wiped off the table and all you have to do is finish off the remainder of what needs to be cut to bring FY 2012 spending down to what it was for FY 2008.  What do you cut first?

Hmm

I notice that not once have you  cited any sources for your assertions, whereas I have provided such data/solurces.

I realize that to you it is inconceivable that there can be any reductions in federal government expenditures and the solution to all problems is more taxes and higher taxes.

Finally, if you were to bother looking back on the thread you would note that I cited several agencies I would be delighted to cut (even if there were no deficit).  Those include the State department, the EPA, BATFE, but to name a few.   

[Gustaf]

Hmm.

According to Reuters, President Obama is supporting a plan which includes $1.2 trillion in new revenues  with  $2.55 trillion is supposed savings over 10 years. 

Now, to me that adds up (if we assume the “savings” actually occur), to a total of $3.75 trillion.

According to my calculator, $1.2 trillion is 32 percent of $3.75 trillion.

Now, I had previously pointed out that the revenue enhancements, or to be more honest about it, tax increases would be between one and two trillion.

On the other hand,  Gustaf kept trying to peddle the myth that such revenue enhancements would only amount to 17 percent of the package.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-usa-debt-gang-idUSTRE76I5CK20110719

The plan cited in the article is not Obama's plan, and thus not the plan we were discussing earlier. Furthermore, the plan includes tax-cuts as well as tax hikes which means your math is misleading: "Conrad was quick to say that while there are $1.2 trillion in new revenues, the overall plan envisions a $1.5 trillion tax cut that would be achieved through broad tax reforms."

Gustaf,

Like Obama, you have ducked and dodged continuously.

Like Obama, you want more taxes.

You seem to also agree with Obama that any funds in private hands are "tax expenditures."

So, since you say you don't want to tax Americans to death, just how much higher do you want taxes to go?  Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?

I've not ducked or dodged anything (you have though, in a rather irritating fashion). I'm not even sure what your third sentence is talking about but I'll assume it's some other irrelevant nonsense.

As regards the exact tax level that the US should have I haven't really studied that issue in sufficient detail to give a precise answer. My broad impression is that the American tax system seems quite mangled and I suspect in dire need of reform. Such a reform should probably aim to cut rates while eliminating the various credits or breaks that currently exist. This is especially true for corporate taxes, where the rate is quite high but the various deductions, etc push down the effective rate. Over the longer term I suspect such reform could cut the effective rate while still bringing in equal revenue.

I also have the impression that things like the capital gains tax could be raised (possibly paired with a cut in regular income tax), because I'm unconvinced that net benefits outweigh negative consequences as such low levels of taxation as currently is the fact in that field.

On the spending side, there could also be a substantial cleaning up. There seems to be quite a bit of frivolous spending on things like farm subsidies and various pork projects. An overhaul of the budget process, moving it to more of a top-down approach would probably do a lot to fix that.

According to wikipedia, all levels of government in the US currently bring in just above a quarter of GDP in revenue while spending close to 40% of GDP. Some of that is cyclical and will disappear by itself. Still I suspect the overall level would probably have to get closer to 30%.

In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.

Well,

First let me thank you for partially responding to my questions.

Second, let me educate you.  The term "tax expenditure" is used by people like you who believe that any funds left in private hands (not seized by the government) is a "tax expenditure."

Third, of course the tax structure is mangled since the most profitable route to making/retaining wealth is to obtain a tax preference (often coupled with a subsidy).  The aircraft manufacturers got such a preferenace as part of Porkulus (which I opposed and I seem to remember you supported).

Fourth, there is considerable improvement on the expenditure side from state and local governments in most of the United States (Illinois being a notable exception).  However, the federal government continues its wild spree of spending unabated.

Fifth, for a little math, increasing the aggregate tax rate to 40% from the current approximately 25% would be an increase of 60%!  Now, I have no doubt you have no problem with such a massive tax increase but Americans will. 

Have I actually used the term tax expenditure anywhere in this thread? I don't think I have. Thus I'm not sure how that is relevant to anything.

Furthermore, you seem to remember wrongly, since I never said I supported the stimulus bill. You just assumed that I did, just like you've been assuming things about my positions throughout this thread.

Of course, I never said that I wanted taxes raised by that much. I'll note though that you want to cut spending by about 40% (or more, since you seem to think taxes are already too high?) I doubt most American voters would like that either. Of course, what American voters would like will presumably be made evident in elections and has no relevance to what the right course of action is. The point of discussion is to argue for one's own position, not to try and figure out what everyone else thinks so one can repeat the same thing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustaf,

Let's see what you said and logical conclusions flowing therefrom:

You were kind enough to answer my question as to how much of the economy should be consumed by government.

You said between thirty to forty per cent.

Now, unless you are advocating deficit spending (which you seemed to be arguing against), then if current revenues to government amounts to twenty-five per cent of the economy (as you have contended), and those revenues are to raised to equal expenditures of 40 oer cent of the economy, that would amount to a 60% increase.  Or does Sweden have some kind of 'new math'?

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

Let's see what you said and logical conclusions flowing therefrom:

You were kind enough to answer my question as to how much of the economy should be consumed by government.

You said between thirty to forty per cent.

Now, unless you are advocating deficit spending (which you seemed to be arguing against), then if current revenues to government amounts to twenty-five per cent of the economy (as you have contended), and those revenues are to raised to equal expenditures of 40 oer cent of the economy, that would amount to a 60% increase.  Or does Sweden have some kind of 'new math'?

That is assuming the 40% level, which is the top of the interval. Which makes it rather dishonest. Besides, I'm not really prescribing that as what I think should be done now in the US.

I realize that to you the world is composed of simple black and white building blocks, but to me the world is a complex place where we get to answer certain questions progressively in better and better ways.

Many policies that were standard 20, 50 or 100 years ago are now recognized as terrible. I don't think that all the policies thought efficient today will be judged similarly in 20 years.

I have certain ideological principles - I think everyone should have the right to education and I think a civilized society should provide basic subsistence to people who can't do so themselves. I also think that the fundamental freedom of the individual to work and live wherever she wants requires that the income derived from one's work is left largely in the hands of that individual to use freely. Thus, I have a basic vision of a free and just society.

However, I'm not convinced what specific tax policies best achieve these goals. The state has an important role in correcting certain market failures. At the same time, the political process tends to get corrupted and deliver bribes to powerful lobby groups. This makes the formulation of optimal policy decisions rather tricky.

As a recent economics paper I read suggested, a combination of Swedish spending emphasis with American spending levels might be welfare improving. Basically, I think there are lessons to be learned from different systems.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustaf,

In my Reply #100 on this thread on July 20, 2011 I asked you:
“Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?”
In your reply #101 on July 20, 2011 you said:
“In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.”
In your reply #109 you seem to be backing off your prior statement when you said:
“That is assuming the 40% level, which is the top of the interval. Which makes it rather dishonest.”
So, somewhere at least 30 percent but less than 40%?
Well, according to my sources, total government spending or 2010 amounts to approximately 39.97% of the GDP in the United States.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
So, given the numbers, and your enthusiasm for tax increases, your 40% number seemed to be what you were actually advocating.
Now, the major change in increase in government spending over the last few years has been at the federal (national) level where expenditures grew from 20.65% of GDP in 2008 to 23.82% in 2010.  For the mathematically challenged, that means that the federal government is consuming 3.17% MORE of the GDP in 2010 than it did in 2008!
By contrast, expenditures of the states increased by only 0.37% during the same period while local government expenditures actually decreased by approximately 0.10 per cent of the GDP during the same period!
Now, three percent of the GDP would be more than $400 billion dollars.
So, if the federal government had been no more profligate than the state governments, then the federal annual deficit would be at least $400 billion dollars lower than is the actual case.
So, the problem isn’t inadequate revenues, but rather excessive expenditures.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

In my Reply #100 on this thread on July 20, 2011 I asked you:
“Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?”
In your reply #101 on July 20, 2011 you said:
“In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.”
In your reply #109 you seem to be backing off your prior statement when you said:
“That is assuming the 40% level, which is the top of the interval. Which makes it rather dishonest.”
So, somewhere at least 30 percent but less than 40%?
Well, according to my sources, total government spending or 2010 amounts to approximately 39.97% of the GDP in the United States.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
So, given the numbers, and your enthusiasm for tax increases, your 40% number seemed to be what you were actually advocating.
Now, the major change in increase in government spending over the last few years has been at the federal (national) level where expenditures grew from 20.65% of GDP in 2008 to 23.82% in 2010.  For the mathematically challenged, that means that the federal government is consuming 3.17% MORE of the GDP in 2010 than it did in 2008!
By contrast, expenditures of the states increased by only 0.37% during the same period while local government expenditures actually decreased by approximately 0.10 per cent of the GDP during the same period!
Now, three percent of the GDP would be more than $400 billion dollars.
So, if the federal government had been no more profligate than the state governments, then the federal annual deficit would be at least $400 billion dollars lower than is the actual case.
So, the problem isn’t inadequate revenues, but rather excessive expenditures.

You're not making any sense. Since I said between 30 and 40 and not above 30 in the short-term assuming 40% is dishonest. I explicitly made the point that I don't think the level is of paramount importance and needs a lot more detailed analysis.

Anyway, since I said I favour spending cuts from the current level of 39.97% saying that I seem to be in favour of 40% is clearly outright wrong, wouldn't you say?

As for the rest of what you say, what the problem is comes down to some sort of value judgement, doesn't it? The American democratic system has decided that it wants to spend 40% of GDP without actually taxing people for it. Whether to give up the spending or the taxation or parts of both is a political decision that will have to be made. The vast majority of the American voters agree with me that it should be both. A relatively small minority, including you wants to not touch taxes at all.

(And of course Ernest makes a valid point that you keep ignoring - you can't really compare revenue in 2008 to 2010 without accounting for the crisis and the changing demographics)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I realize that to you it is inconceivable that there can be any reductions in federal government expenditures and the solution to all problems is more taxes and higher taxes.

Your realization is faulty CARL.  I've already pointed out areas I'd like to see spending cuts in and they are more significant cuts that the paltry amounts you've actually bothered to point out.

Finally, if you were to bother looking back on the thread you would note that I cited several agencies I would be delighted to cut (even if there were no deficit).  Those include the State department, the EPA, BATFE, but to name a few.   

As has been pointed out to you before, even cutting all of those wouldn't even accomplish even the first dime of every dollar of the deficit (i.e. 10% since you seem to dislike doing actual math) of the current shortfall.  If you're going to eliminate the deficit by cutting spending alone, then even zeroing out all non-Defense "discretionary" spending won't accomplish the goal.  One or more of the big four: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense will need to be cut.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustaf,

In my Reply #100 on this thread on July 20, 2011 I asked you:
“Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?”
In your reply #101 on July 20, 2011 you said:
“In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.”
In your reply #109 you seem to be backing off your prior statement when you said:
“That is assuming the 40% level, which is the top of the interval. Which makes it rather dishonest.”
So, somewhere at least 30 percent but less than 40%?
Well, according to my sources, total government spending or 2010 amounts to approximately 39.97% of the GDP in the United States.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
So, given the numbers, and your enthusiasm for tax increases, your 40% number seemed to be what you were actually advocating.
Now, the major change in increase in government spending over the last few years has been at the federal (national) level where expenditures grew from 20.65% of GDP in 2008 to 23.82% in 2010.  For the mathematically challenged, that means that the federal government is consuming 3.17% MORE of the GDP in 2010 than it did in 2008!
By contrast, expenditures of the states increased by only 0.37% during the same period while local government expenditures actually decreased by approximately 0.10 per cent of the GDP during the same period!
Now, three percent of the GDP would be more than $400 billion dollars.
So, if the federal government had been no more profligate than the state governments, then the federal annual deficit would be at least $400 billion dollars lower than is the actual case.
So, the problem isn’t inadequate revenues, but rather excessive expenditures.

You're not making any sense. Since I said between 30 and 40 and not above 30 in the short-term assuming 40% is dishonest. I explicitly made the point that I don't think the level is of paramount importance and needs a lot more detailed analysis.

Anyway, since I said I favour spending cuts from the current level of 39.97% saying that I seem to be in favour of 40% is clearly outright wrong, wouldn't you say?

As for the rest of what you say, what the problem is comes down to some sort of value judgement, doesn't it? The American democratic system has decided that it wants to spend 40% of GDP without actually taxing people for it. Whether to give up the spending or the taxation or parts of both is a political decision that will have to be made. The vast majority of the American voters agree with me that it should be both. A relatively small minority, including you wants to not touch taxes at all.

(And of course Ernest makes a valid point that you keep ignoring - you can't really compare revenue in 2008 to 2010 without accounting for the crisis and the changing demographics)

So, while you want taxes somewhere (you remain vague) above 30% of the GDP (but somewhere less than 40%, you now say), but you don't want it now (presumably you want to sneak such increases in when people aren't looking).

You and Ernest want more and higher taxes.

I get it. 

You and Ernest want more and higher taxes.

Facts mean nothing to you.

You and Ernest want more and higher taxes.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

In my Reply #100 on this thread on July 20, 2011 I asked you:
“Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?”
In your reply #101 on July 20, 2011 you said:
“In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.”
In your reply #109 you seem to be backing off your prior statement when you said:
“That is assuming the 40% level, which is the top of the interval. Which makes it rather dishonest.”
So, somewhere at least 30 percent but less than 40%?
Well, according to my sources, total government spending or 2010 amounts to approximately 39.97% of the GDP in the United States.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
So, given the numbers, and your enthusiasm for tax increases, your 40% number seemed to be what you were actually advocating.
Now, the major change in increase in government spending over the last few years has been at the federal (national) level where expenditures grew from 20.65% of GDP in 2008 to 23.82% in 2010.  For the mathematically challenged, that means that the federal government is consuming 3.17% MORE of the GDP in 2010 than it did in 2008!
By contrast, expenditures of the states increased by only 0.37% during the same period while local government expenditures actually decreased by approximately 0.10 per cent of the GDP during the same period!
Now, three percent of the GDP would be more than $400 billion dollars.
So, if the federal government had been no more profligate than the state governments, then the federal annual deficit would be at least $400 billion dollars lower than is the actual case.
So, the problem isn’t inadequate revenues, but rather excessive expenditures.

You're not making any sense. Since I said between 30 and 40 and not above 30 in the short-term assuming 40% is dishonest. I explicitly made the point that I don't think the level is of paramount importance and needs a lot more detailed analysis.

Anyway, since I said I favour spending cuts from the current level of 39.97% saying that I seem to be in favour of 40% is clearly outright wrong, wouldn't you say?

As for the rest of what you say, what the problem is comes down to some sort of value judgement, doesn't it? The American democratic system has decided that it wants to spend 40% of GDP without actually taxing people for it. Whether to give up the spending or the taxation or parts of both is a political decision that will have to be made. The vast majority of the American voters agree with me that it should be both. A relatively small minority, including you wants to not touch taxes at all.

(And of course Ernest makes a valid point that you keep ignoring - you can't really compare revenue in 2008 to 2010 without accounting for the crisis and the changing demographics)

So, while you want taxes somewhere (you remain vague) above 30% of the GDP (but somewhere less than 40%, you now say), but you don't want it now (presumably you want to sneak such increases in when people aren't looking).

You and Ernest want more and higher taxes.

I get it. 

You and Ernest want more and higher taxes.

Facts mean nothing to you.

You and Ernest want more and higher taxes.

lol

If anyone here is stubbornly ignoring facts, it's you. I don't get why distorting my position is more important to you than trying to reason about the best way to tackle the deficit.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Don't you guys have something better to do?  Get out in the sun, take a jog...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Don't you guys have something better to do?  Get out in the sun, take a jog...

Hard to get out in the sun this time of night.  I guess I could eat some of those walnuts my doctor prescribed after hearing about their medicinal effects before I go to bed.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Don't you guys have something better to do?  Get out in the sun, take a jog...

Hard to get out in the sun this time of night.

I mean in general.   

[Gustaf]

Don't you guys have something better to do?  Get out in the sun, take a jog...

Hard to get out in the sun this time of night.

I mean in general.   

I'm at work, so getting out in the sun is not an alternative.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Don't you guys have something better to do?  Get out in the sun, take a jog...

Hard to get out in the sun this time of night.

I mean in general.    

I'm at work, so getting out in the sun is not an alternative.

Alright, fair enough, but why debate CARL?  I mean, both you and True Federalist seem like pretty bright guys (dispite any disagreements we may have), but dont you have better things to do than talking to brick walls?  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Don't you guys have something better to do?  Get out in the sun, take a jog...

Hard to get out in the sun this time of night.

I mean in general.   

I'm at work, so getting out in the sun is not an alternative.

Alright, fair enough, but why debate CARL?  I mean, both you and True Federalist seem pretty bright guys (dispite any disagreements we may have), but dont you have better things to do than talking to brick walls? 

It does let one see if one's ideas are firm enough to bounce back or simply go splat like a rotten egg.

[bullmoose88]

Don't you guys have something better to do?  Get out in the sun, take a jog...

Hard to get out in the sun this time of night.

I mean in general.   

I'm at work, so getting out in the sun is not an alternative.

Alright, fair enough, but why debate CARL?  I mean, both you and True Federalist seem pretty bright guys (dispite any disagreements we may have), but dont you have better things to do than talking to brick walls? 

It does let one see if one's ideas are firm enough to bounce back or simply go splat like a rotten egg.

I just don't know how you continue to do it without getting a massive headache.

[Gustaf]

Don't you guys have something better to do?  Get out in the sun, take a jog...

Hard to get out in the sun this time of night.

I mean in general.   

I'm at work, so getting out in the sun is not an alternative.

Alright, fair enough, but why debate CARL?  I mean, both you and True Federalist seem pretty bright guys (dispite any disagreements we may have), but dont you have better things to do than talking to brick walls? 

During day hours in Sweden, relatively few Americans are on, so there typically isn't much interaction on the boards when I'm at work.

Besides, I often find it insightful to debate people who lack argumentative skill and an even remotely objective view of the world. It's why I engage people like Opebo or BRTD as well.

I'll admit that Carl seems to have run out of insults. Judging by his last post there isn't going to be anything interesting emerging from this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Alright, fair enough, but why debate CARL?  I mean, both you and True Federalist seem pretty bright guys (dispite any disagreements we may have), but dont you have better things to do than talking to brick walls? 

It does let one see if one's ideas are firm enough to bounce back or simply go splat like a rotten egg.

I just don't know how you continue to do it without getting a massive headache.

It is not my head that I am bouncing off the brick wall.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Obama to raise 10-year deficit to $9 trillion

By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

Higher taxes, which could slow economic growth, are also a major concern of voters on both sides of the political divide

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009
/08/21/us-obama-deficit-longterm-exclusive-idUSTRE57K4XE20090821