Fuck its silent in here.......

[Waco Kid]

I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years.

The only time either party gives a shit about the deficit is during election season when they need votes. The deficit doesn't matter after that.

[Gilgamesh]

I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years.

The only time either party gives a shit about the deficit is during election season when they need votes. The deficit doesn't matter after that.

Dick Cheney taught me that deficits don't matter anyway.

[R-V]

I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years.

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.



So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

I'd argue that the difference between 20% or so (where revenue was at around 1970, 1980, and 2000) and 15% or so (1950 and 2010) seams pretty significant to me. 5% of 15 trillion-ish GDP is $750 billion.

Assuming a federal budget of around $3.5 trillion, that's about a fifth of the budget.

[morpheus]

I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years.

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.



So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

I'd argue that the difference between 20% or so (where revenue was at around 1970, 1980, and 2000) and 15% or so (1950 and 2010) seams pretty significant to me. 5% of 15 trillion-ish GDP is $750 billion.

Assuming a federal budget of around $3.5 trillion, that's about a fifth of the budget.

Those don't correlate very well with tax rates though, which was my point.

[Quality Start Machine]

I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years.

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.



So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

You're absolutely right. There's no way hundreds of billions of dollars in added revenue from expiring tax cuts could possibly have any affect on a budget deficit.

[morpheus]

I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years.

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.



So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

You're absolutely right. There's no way hundreds of billions of dollars in added revenue from expiring tax cuts could possibly have any affect on a budget deficit.

You're absolutely right.  No one will do anything differently when faced with higher tax rates.  I have a feeling that despite your quoting my post, you didn't actually read it.

[Quality Start Machine]

I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years.

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.



So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

You're absolutely right. There's no way hundreds of billions of dollars in added revenue from expiring tax cuts could possibly have any affect on a budget deficit.

You're absolutely right.  No one will do anything differently when faced with higher tax rates.  I have a feeling that despite your quoting my post, you didn't actually read it.

I read it. Here's a novel thought...since profits (and not revenues) are taxed, wouldn't a higher bracket INCENTIVIZE hiring in order to avoid moving into a higher bracket?

[R-V]

I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years.

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.



So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

I'd argue that the difference between 20% or so (where revenue was at around 1970, 1980, and 2000) and 15% or so (1950 and 2010) seams pretty significant to me. 5% of 15 trillion-ish GDP is $750 billion.

Assuming a federal budget of around $3.5 trillion, that's about a fifth of the budget.

Those don't correlate very well with tax rates though, which was my point.

So - if the argument is that individuals adjust their behavior based on tax rates (increase productivity when rates are high, decrease productivity when rates are low) - revenue is basically dependent on general economic conditions - right? So why do we see periods when receipts outpace GDP (late 90s) and GDP outpaces receipts (early 90s)?

[Eli]

I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years.

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.



So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

I'd argue that the difference between 20% or so (where revenue was at around 1970, 1980, and 2000) and 15% or so (1950 and 2010) seams pretty significant to me. 5% of 15 trillion-ish GDP is $750 billion.

Assuming a federal budget of around $3.5 trillion, that's about a fifth of the budget.

Those don't correlate very well with tax rates though, which was my point.

So - if the argument is that individuals adjust their behavior based on tax rates (increase productivity when rates are high, decrease productivity when rates are low) - revenue is basically dependent on general economic conditions - right? So why do we see periods when receipts outpace GDP (late 90s) and GDP outpaces receipts (early 90s)?

Also:

[Gilgamesh]

I think this tax cut deal is pretty good for all parties.  A 13 month extension of UI is incredibly generous, considering that Pelosi's legislation would have only done 3 months.  Coupled with the other tax deals in there, this thing could amount to another (wait for it...) stimulus.

Both parties got something and both parties gave up something.  I now have a sliver of hope in this country's ability to get some things accomplished.

[morpheus]

I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years.

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.



So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

I'd argue that the difference between 20% or so (where revenue was at around 1970, 1980, and 2000) and 15% or so (1950 and 2010) seams pretty significant to me. 5% of 15 trillion-ish GDP is $750 billion.

Assuming a federal budget of around $3.5 trillion, that's about a fifth of the budget.

Those don't correlate very well with tax rates though, which was my point.

So - if the argument is that individuals adjust their behavior based on tax rates (increase productivity when rates are high, decrease productivity when rates are low) - revenue is basically dependent on general economic conditions - right? So why do we see periods when receipts outpace GDP (late 90s) and GDP outpaces receipts (early 90s)?

Eli's right... nice chart, RV.  But seriously, 10-year growth rates?  Talk about noise...

GDP and receipts will *never* grow at the same rate, because GDP is dependent on several factors including government spending, which we all know grew at a relatively slower rate in the late 1990s (hence the "Clinton Surpluses.")  That chart would be more relevant if you got rid of some of the lines and put in the top marginal tax rate so we could more directly see the interaction between tax rate, actual receipts, and GDP.

But what I showed above still remains the same.  No matter how hard the government tries the level of receipts as a percentage of GDP is remarkably consistent.

[Slaky]

Luke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON.

[R-V]

Luke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON.

Now we know why the Tards want Berkman. La Russa needs a buddy to go with him to Tea Party rallies.

DB: You must miss talking to Berkman.
LS: Lance? Lance is awesome. He's what I call "A fellow American." He's a good man.

[Slaky]

Luke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON.

Now we know why the Tards want Berkman. La Russa needs a buddy to go with him to Tea Party rallies.

DB: You must miss talking to Berkman.
LS: Lance? Lance is awesome. He's what I call "A fellow American." He's a good man.

I'm shocked that rich, white, southern men feel this way.

[Bort]

Luke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON.

Now we know why the Tards want Berkman. La Russa needs a buddy to go with him to Tea Party rallies.

DB: You must miss talking to Berkman.
LS: Lance? Lance is awesome. He's what I call "A fellow American." He's a good man.

I'm shocked that rich, white, southern men feel this way.

American = White