Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (544423)	1/16/2010 7:02:05 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579682

First off. That's good data. It gets us closer to being able to have a good debate. However, you logic is a bit off. We need to separate the growth in tax revenues that comes naturally with GDP growth from that which comes as a result of tax rate changes. One way to do that would be to look at tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. I added those percentages to your numbers below. Year GDP-US Total Revenue-total Rev as % of GDP 2000 9749.1 3457.77 35% 2001 10058.2 3756.33 37% 2002 10398.4 3388.04 33% 2003 10886.2 3671.43 34% 2004 11607 3594.74 31% 2005 12339 4017.01 33% 2006 13090.8 4435.76 34% 2007 13715.7 4733.21 35% 2008 14165.6 4814.3 34% 2009 14240.2 4488.71 32% If cutting taxes really generated more revenues, then we should expect to see tax revs as a percentage of GDP to have increased after Bush's 2003 tax cuts, but they did not. As you can see, right after Bush's 2003 tax cuts, the percentage fell significantly, then it started to creep back up, most probably due to the massive amount of easy credit and deficit spending that Bush engaged in, which stimulated corporate profits. If we wanted to add a little more color to this picture, we should look at Clinton's 8 years for comparison. Where did you get this data? I'd like to pull all of the Clinton years and see what that tells us as well.