Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

I made no claim whatever about the tax revenues of the U.S. government during the 1970s. Instead I addressed the conditions of the economy, economic growth rate & inflation, that affected the general population. Part of our persistent misunderstanding here is that you appear to regard government revenues as a good thing, while I regard them as, at best, irrelevant to the public, and at worst as positively harmful. It is government spending that is critical - in general the less the better. Indeed the wonderful government revenue growth that Krugman cites in the 1970s occurred during a period in which most people suffered through fairly adverse ecvonomic circumstances. The welfare of the government and the welfare of the people are different things - a distinction you and Krugman apparently don't make.

I didn't say that the 1980's saw greater government revenue growth than the 1970s. I said the people enjoyed a better set of circumstances then. And they did indeed - and the benefits established then continued through the 1990s.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Inflation does not by itself cause Fed Receipts to increase because of inflation. The fact that some companies decide to raise salaries with so-called cost of living increases, is not a general policy of all employers. What percentage of employees have received these increases 1981 to 1988?

We know that all businesses and employed people had their tax rates reduced by Reagan's tax cuts. Despite these tax cuts, federal receipts increased significantly over Reagans two terms.

I'll assume for an upper estimate that 100% of employers and employees received cost of living increases over Reagan's 8 years.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Year…….$Receipts
…
1980….517,112,000 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1981….599,272,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982….617,766,000
1983….600,562,000
1984….666,486,000
1985….734,068,000
1986….769,215,000
1987….854,353,000
1988….909,303,000

1988 receipts/1980 receipts = $909,303,000/$517,112,000 = 1.758, or a 75.8% increase over 8 years.
Whereas, inflation over the same period was:

Quote:

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=1
Year……..Inflation…......Increase
………………Rate……....Factor
1988........ 4.08%............1.0408
1987........ 3.66%............1.0366
1986........ 1.91%............1.o191
1985........ 3.55%............1.0355
1984........ 4.30%............1.0430
1983........ 3.22%............1.0322
1982........ 6.16%............1.0619
1981........10.35%...........1.1035

Product of inflation increase factors = 1.40939, or a 40.94% increase over 8 years.

Notice that fed receipts increase / Product of inflation increase factors = 75.8%/40.94% = 1.85.[/size]

4 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
TOTAL CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
2009:
January.................... 142,221
February................... 141,687
March...................... 140,854
April...................... 140,902
May........................ 140,438
June....................... 140,038
July....................... 139,817
August..................... 139,433
September.................. 138,768
October.................... 138,242
November................... 138,381
December...................137,792

2010:
January ...................... 138,333

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year................USA Civil Population
1980...................... 167,745,000 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1981...................... 170,130,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982..................... 172,271,000
1983..................... 174,215,000
1984..................... 176,383,000
1985..................... 178,206,000
1986..................... 180,587,000
1987..................... 182,753,000
1988..................... 184,613,000
The US Civil population grew from 167,745,000 to 184,613,000 1980 to 1988.
That's a ratio = 184,613,000/167,745,000 = 1.1006, or a 10.06% increase.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year..........USA Total Civil Employed
1980.................99,302,000 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1981....………….....100,397,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982......................99,526,000
1983...................100,834,000
1984...................105,005,000
1985…...……........107,150,000
1986...................109,597,000
1987....................112,440,000
1988...............114,968,000
US Civil Employment grew from 99,302,000 to 114,968,000.
The ratio of increase is 114,968,000 / 99,302,000 = 1.1578, or 15.78%

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Product of inflation increase factors = 1.40939, or a 40.94% increase over 8 years.

You can start by correcting your math error here ican.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Notice that fed receipts increase / Product of inflation increase factors = 75.8%/40.94% = 1.85

I have no idea what you are trying to say 1.85 is

Dividing the receipts by the inflation gives you what in your mind?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

By the way ican,
If you want to use the tax figures from the US budget, should you also use their inflation figures?

(.7359-.5029)/.5029 = .4633

But even better, the same table 1.3 already adjusts for inflation for us.
1980 = 1028.3
1988 = 1235.6

So from 1980 to 1988 we only see an increase of 20% and we haven't adjusted for the 10% increase in population yet.

Now let's look at the difference in inflation adjusted tax revenues from 1992-2000
1992 = 1282.7
2000 = 2025.5

So from 1992-2000 we see an increase of 58% before adjusting for population growth.

Which is a better increase in tax revenues ican? 20% or 58%?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

1980 to 1988:
Fed Receipts %Increase = 75.8%, or increased by a factor of 1.758;
US Inflation %Increase = 40.94%, or increased by a factor of 1.4094;
US Civil Population %Increase = 10.06%, or increased by a factor of 1.1006;
US Civil Employment %Increase = 15.78%, or increased by a factor of 1.1578.

Federal Receipts Increase factor is less than the product of Inflation increase factor, US Civil population Increase factor, and US Civil Employment Increase factor = 1.4094 x 1.1006 x 1.1578 = 1.796.

But Inflation and Population increases did not increase taxable incomes or Fed Receipts in 1980 to 1988. Fed Receipts were increased by increases in taxable incomes and increases in the number employed. Both of these were increased by reducing taxes on incomes from 70% to 33%.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

US Inflation %Increase = 40.94%, or increased by a factor of 1.4094;

This number is WRONG.

You need to correct it ican. Check your math, it looks like you used a "o" in one of your numbers so it wasn't included in your formula.

Not only that, you are using numbers from calender in one set of numbers and budget year in the other which is WRONG as well.
Use the budget year inflation numbers in the budget you linked to.

0 Replies

It has been alleged that this statement of mine is wrong:
US Inflation %Increase = 40.94%, or increased by a factor of 1.4094.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with my statement?

2 Replies

Question for the Obama thread. Should Holder resign over the KSM trial. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the decision was stupid stupid stupid, which was obvious to many of us before they even did it. And actually, if Holder should resign, where does that leave Obama? Hey, the news reports even Emmanuel opposes the trial being held there. More Democrats continue to come out in opposition, because they understand people realize how dumb it is.

Basically, more people realize the stupidity of granting civilian legal protection to people at war with us. I remember the debates on this forum trying to convince the Bush haters that it was a stupid policy, and why Gitmo made alot of sense, to no avail, but I wonder if common sense and voter anger will eventually win? I hope so.
I have posted an excerpt from the link given below.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02/15/100215fa_fact_mayer

"Despite the prominence of the demonstration’s organizers, the campaign against Holder’s Justice Department was largely overlooked by the national media, which considered the event a fringe affair. But the anger was growing, and it became impossible to ignore on January 19th, when Scott Brown, a Republican, captured the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat. As Eric Fehrnstrom, Brown’s political consultant, put it to me recently, the “most potent political issue” in the race was voter opposition to the Justice Department’s decision to extend customary legal protections to suspected terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian suspect who on Christmas Day attempted to detonate a bomb on a Northwest Airlines passenger plane bound for Detroit."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Tell us how you arrived at it, and I will point out the error in your math.

0 Replies

@okie,

What exactly has happened that makes it 'dumb?'

Or are you just scared? It sounds a lot like the second.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

I have a question for all of you that favor any kind of tax increase.

Would it work if we let the federal govt decide how much money each family needed, and let them keep the rest.

If the govt decides that you need $25,000 to live on, and you make $55,000 a year, why dont we let the govt keep that extra $30,000?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Favoring an increase in taxes doesn't mean I think people should be restricted in how much they make. It is a false argument.

If I make $1 million and pay 50% taxes, it doesn't mean I don't keep more money if I make $2 million.

1 Reply

@parados,

It wasnt meant to be any kind of argument, it was meant to be a question that was trying to make a point (but I guess I didnt).
My point was that if taxes go up enough to pay off the federal debt and the deficit, and to keep all of the social programs and govt spending going, it will eventually have to get to the point where people are restricted in how much they make.

With the baby boomers starting to hit retirement age now, and with less people actually working and paying taxes to support SS and all of the other govt programs, the govt is going to have to start taking more of peoples money.

Because we all know that the govt will not cut spending instead.

1 Reply

Good afternoon from a snowed in Johnboy in Virginia.
It seems to me, Mysteryman, that no one favors a tax increase for the sole purpose of having a tax increase.
Here are some numbers for yall for fiscal year 2009 (I can cite sources if challenged):
50% of Federal SPENDING went for national defense, Social Security and Medicare. 3% more went to veterans' affairs and 5% went to interest on the debt. 42% went to everything else.
That Federal spending resulted in a big deficit for 2009.
Look at the numbers another way:
Defense, Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt gobbled up 98% of Federal REVENUES for 2009.
Dems and Repubs have done a shitty job of explaining to the public what is going on.
We started a little game here to look for ideas to cut the deficit. The response has been underwhelming. MM had some ideas, as I recall, about possible spending cuts. The question was asked about why defense, Social Security and Medicare should be off the table.
Some favor cutting taxes (or tax rates) but have offered no projections as to what the result would be on Federal revenues.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

As I recall,Bush tried to do something about SS and the dems raised hell about it.
His idea about "privatizing" SS would have saved millions of dollars, because people would have relied on themselves.

Sure, defense can be cut, but what would you cut from it?

And medicare is off the table because to many people depend on it as part of the "safety net" that to many Americans think they are somehow entitled to.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Some of us recommend raising taxes as the most effective way to pay down the debt...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know