Mitt Romney Tax Plan: Study Shows Deduction Caps Don't Pay For Tax Cuts

[Covertibility]

For those that understand why one uses revenue as a % of GDP, a good reference point:
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


Now for the republican mind ( and I'm only posting this to see how humorous these mutants could explain the following):

Bill Clinton tax hikes signed into law Sept 1993:

<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=FGRECPT&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=1993-09-01&coed=2001-01-31&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-10-18&revision_date=2012-10-18>


Generalissimo Bush tax cuts:

<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=FGRECPT&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=2001-01-01&coed=2008-04-30&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-10-18&revision_date=2012-10-18>

Trough to peak, it appears tax hikes produced more revenue when considering in terms of percentage.

 

[NoBailOutBoy]

Quote from jem:

i frequently defended you.
its my recollection you brought out the knives first.

You defended an Obamanite? I've always wanted to know what the underside of that bus looks like.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Covertibility:

For those that understand why one uses revenue as a % of GDP, a good reference point:

Good charts. It's obvious that negative tax cuts raise revenues.

 

[NoBailOutBoy]

So exactly what percent of GDP should the tax rate be?
How much tax revenue will be enough?
Will your tax rate adjust for inflation? If so, up or down?

 

[NoBailOutBoy]

Quote from Ricter:

Good charts. It's obvious that negative tax cuts raise revenues.

"negative tax cuts" Is that Liberalise for Tax Hikes?

 

[jem]

you lefties are going further and further off the deepend. Think about what you are now arguing.

You are arguing we should be serving govt with our labor so that govt can become a bigger part of the economy.

you clowns lost the argument on whether revenues went up after tax cuts...

so now you are arguing you desire bigger tax revenues relative to the size of the economy.

good look with that Mr. Trotsky and Mr. Lenin.

Americans are not here to maximize their utility for the govt. The govt should be maxmizing its utility for us.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from Ricter:

Good charts. It's obvious that negative tax cuts raise revenues.

So why don't you give me money and see how it raises your revenue?

 

[NoBailOutBoy]

Quote from jem:

you lefties are going further and further off the deepend. Think about what you are now arguing.

You are arguing we should be serving govt with our labor so that govt can become a bigger part of the economy.

you clowns lost the argument on whether revenues went up after tax cuts...

so now you are arguing you desire bigger tax revenues relative to the size of the economy.

good look with that Mr. Trotsky and Mr. Lenin.

Americans are not here to maximize their utility for the govt. The govt should be maxmizing its utility for us.

I especially like your last two sentences. Unfortunately I'm afraid those words are lost on Mr. Trotsky and Mr. Lenin.
No matter. I imagine they'll be moving on to their next losing argument. Free Loader has been gone for a while now also.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

you lefties are going further and further off the deepend. Think about what you are now arguing.

You are arguing we should be serving govt with our labor so that govt can become a bigger part of the economy.

you clowns lost the argument on whether revenues went up after tax cuts...

You lost it, since you can't juggle three variables.

 

[L-Kabong]

Quote from jem:

After the bush tax cuts, revenues increased 44%... thats a fact.


Table 1

Year Tax Revenues(in Millions) Expenditures(in Millions) Surplus/Deficit(in Millions)
1993 $1,154.0 $1,409.4 -$255.1
1994 $1,258.6 $1,461.8 -$203.2
1995 $1,351.8 $1,515.8 -$164.0
1996 $1,453.1 $1,560.5 -$107.4
1997 $1,579.2 $1,610.1 -$21.9
1998 $1,721.7 $1,652.5 +$69.3
1999 $1,827.5 $1,701.8 +$126.6
2000 $2,026.2 $1,789.0 +$236.2
2001 $1,991.1 $1,862.9 +$128.2
2002 $1,853.1 $2,010.9 -$157.8
2003 $1,782.3 $2,159.9 -$377.6
2004 $1,880.1 $2,252.9 -$412.7
2005 $2,153.6 $2,472.0 -$318.3
2006 $2,406.9 $2,655.1 -$248.2
2007 $2,568.0 $2,728.7 -$160.7
2008 $2,524.0 $2,982.5 -$458.6
2009 $2,105.0 $3,517.7 -$1,412.7
2010 $2,162.7 $3,456.2 -$1,293.5
2011 (estimated) $2,173.7 $3,818.8 -$1,645.1

The rise in revenue under Bush was principally in the years of 2005-2008 which was the height of the bubble economy attended by ridiculous money velocities that yielded easy revenue for government at all levels.

Now we are still in a delevering economy with low money velocity.
Low revenue with outsized obligations. Only a robust fuller employment economy accompanied by spending cuts is going to begin to line up the balance sheet.

Throw the bums out of office. Come Election Day, vote for neither Romney nor Obama. Write in the name of the man who can change everything: L-Kabong.