So you did it again!
You deliberately exclude data because it completely undermines your case!
Why do you do that? Is it just because you don't want to have to eat shit? Because that's what it looks like.
What Taxing the Rich Could Yield
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
So you did it again!
You deliberately exclude data because it completely undermines your case!
Why do you do that? Is it just because you don't want to have to eat shit? Because that's what it looks like.
NOT TRUE!
Because you're not listing it out by year and because you completely left out 2000-2015 in what you posted!
It has everything to do with it when we are talking about raising taxes for the purposes of getting more revenue so we can provide free healthcare, free education, higher Social Security benefits, and forgiving student loan debt.
Your assumption is that raising the tax rates provides more revenue for your programs, but it actually provided less. What other metric is relevant?
The size of which deficits?
You have the same terrible habit cawacko does, which is making false arguments and withholding exculpatory information because it completely undermines your case.
You're also using a metric that has absolutely no relevance to what we're talking about.
You rely on that metric, using shady techniques, to false frame your argument. Then when called out on it, you jump to a non-sequitur and still don't provide the missing info.
It's obvious why you do that.
No it doesn't.
The only reason it does is because you cannot make an argument using any other figures or numbers.
And you're not even using all the data here...you're "summarizing it" without providing your source, and you're leaving out years that undermine your case!
Sophistry.
When the government collects taxes, are they collecting a % of the GDP? No.
So how is revenue-to-GDP relevant?
It's just obscuring the actual numbers in a vacuum.
Of course, the deficit doesn't stay the same when the tax rates get changed, does it?
A better measurement to use would be deficit-as-a-percentage -of-GDP.
But using those numbers would reveal that when taxes are raised, the percentage drops, and when they're cut, the percentage rises.
You using just revenue is looking at just one half of the equation, and you're not even looking at that completely because you're excluding data that undermines your case.
That's deliberate on your part because you make sophistic arguments so you don't have to eat shit.
Are you kidding me?
What fucking deficits do you think?
The ones directly related to the revenue you're talking about.
So you say that from X date to X date, revenue % of GDP remained unchanged.
Yet from X date to X date, deficit % of GDP changes dramatically.
You leave the deficit part out and try to focus on the revenue, but the revenue means nothing without being placed in the context of the budget and deficit.
You don't go that far because doing so completely undermines your entire argument.
So what happens then is you argue that raising taxes would cut revenue, even though that has never happened in the federal budget ever.
Like cawacko, you think you're more clever than you truly are.
How does revenue as a percentage of GDP determine whether or not we can afford to pay for something?
It doesn't.
None of this does.
It's just a phony issue you're trying to raise so you don't have to eat shit and admit that raising taxes on the wealthy would make it possible to pay for programs that are necessary.
You're a fraud. I see right through you.
Let's see. Tax rate 35 percent. How much money is collected? Change top rate to 70 percent. Can you explain how that would not increase revenue? When Ike was president, we had a tax rate of over 90 percent. We built our national highway system . Now we can't maintain it. Of course back then corporations did not have so many ways to evade taxes and they had a higher rate. They contributed over 30 percent of revenue collected. Now under 10. Sorry, but the cold hard fact is we have allowed the people on top get away with paying a slive of the tax rate they once paid. Now we have a wealth gap that is worse than the Gilded Age. A terrible wealth gap is a threat to the system. Money=power.
If it will make you happy I can calculate revenue as a percent of GDP since 2000. You always pick trivial items to detract from the main discussion.
What is your conclusion about higher tax rates of the 50-70's raising less revenue than lower rates of the 80s-80s?
Revenue as a % of GDP:
2000-2010: 17.1%
2011-2017: 15.3%
So...0.9% of GDP is how much money?
Well, let's figure it out.
GDP is currently about $20T.
1% of GDP would be $200B.
Free public college would cost $85B a year at most.
So if we raised taxes so that it resulted in revenues growing by a measly 1% of GDP, we'd be able to afford free public college 2.5x over EACH YEAR.
You're withholding again!
Why do you do that?
What are the totals by each year, and from where are you getting this source?
You need to take some economics. Revenue as a % of GDP determines whether we can pay for something because it determines how much revenue we collect.
So again, by withholding the years and lumping them all together, you are holding back exculpatory information.
So from 2015-2017, you said before rev-GDP was this:
2015: 17.9%
2016: 17.4%
2017: 17.0%
Which means from 2011-2014, it was much lower. It had to be because how else are you getting to that 15.3% number if 2015-2017 averaged around 17.4%?
Now what was the revenue-GDP from 2012 to 2013?
That's the important data because at the end of 2012, the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy expired.
So if rev-GDP grew from 2012-2013 that's because of higher taxes on the rich.
It's no mystery why you're holding that info back from your posts.
You're such a dishonest fucking fraud.
No it doesn't.
You're making shit up as you go.
You're doing that because you just got caught faking your way through this conversation, so you're trying to establish a make-believe standard.
FRAUD.
No it doesn't.
Tax rates determine how much we collect.
Revenue-as-a-percentage of GDP comes after taxes are collected. It has no bearing on spending, it doesn't even include actual totals.
Nevermind the fact that 1% of GDP is $200B (how much did rev-as-a-percentage of GDP fall from 2015-17? 0.9% which is about $200B of current GDP), which would pay for free public colleges 2.5x over.
Your'e a fucking fraud. Who buys this shit? Are you convinced of your own intelligence? If so, bravo with that level of self-delusion.
Moron is smoking too much weed if he thinks free college would only cost $85 billion. 
This is from the federal budget under the historical tables. As usual, you complain because I didn't give my shoe size. It would take too much space to list every year. It would be easier because I calculated the average for each decade. You always ignore the main issue by bringing up trivia.
Here is a chart from the Fed with every year back to the 1930's. I suspect you do not really want the numbers but are just complaining.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
That is going to leave a mark!
Of course it was much lower 2011-2014--actually starting in 2009--it was called a recession. You are only interested in information you can use to make partisan points--you interpret everything based on liberal v. conservative
2008: 17.1%
2009: 14.5%
2010: 14.4%
2011: 14.8%
2012: 15.1%
2013: 16.5%
2014: 17.2%