Just a little graph on federal tax revenues courtesy of AP and the OMB...
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090803/ca...p3hBL37.KWKQ--
OK all you smart people, tell me what you see in this graph.
|
Just a little graph on federal tax revenues courtesy of AP and the OMB...
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090803/ca...p3hBL37.KWKQ--
OK all you smart people, tell me what you see in this graph.
I'm going to put my analyst hat on now.
Truth is, I'm not sure what that graph shows.
It SEEMS to be showing how government revenues have gone up or down over the past 29 years, both from individual taxes and from corporate taxes.
What I don't understand is the Y axis... it seems to be showing a percentage increase or decrease, but a percentage of WHAT is the question. It doesn't seem to be actual dollars.
Can you give me the source of the graph? The link, and perhaps a narative? Because right now, I can't really understand it.
What is your source for this information? Other than that I see Obama laying on the zero line with his arms reaching down below to pull those negative tax number back up above zero.
I cited my source, "courtesy of AP and the OMB." The graphic states, "Office of Management and Budget: Treasury Department."Quote:
Originally Posted by futpucker
Elliot, you're on track. Read the header on the graphic, think about the rhetoric from the left on how Republicans favor big business and Democrats are looking out for the little guy. Then compare that to the data on individual and corporate tax receipts and the time frames shown. After that light bulb comes on ask yourself why Obama delayed releasing the July budget numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Hello, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Tax receipts, they is going down. Shouldn't be surprise during a recession...
excon
Hello again, Steve:
I KNEW I shouldn't have answered. I ain't smart... I don't even SEE a Y axis, that's how dumb I am.
excon
You are absolutely correct. Now dig a little deeper in that brain of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Who cares about the Y axis?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'm not questioning the source. I'm just looking for a naarative to go with the graph, because I don't understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I did take a peek at the current budget numbers at the OMB website. Based on the historical budget numbers, found here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist01z1.xls
Total government revenues for 2009 are expected to go down about 15% from $2.524 trillion to $2.157 trillion. That includes both on-budget and off-budget items. On-budget revenues alone will decrease by 20% from $1.866 trillion to $1.502 trillion.
That's a huge amount of revenue to lose at the same time that we are also increasing spending as we are with the stimulus bill and the omnibus bill and all the bailouts.
Elliot
Hello again, Steve:
Corporate tax revenues spiked in '03, crashed in '05 and have been crashing ever since. If this relates to the Bush tax cut being GOOD, I can't see it.
Sorry. I can't glean anymore stuff out of the graph than that. So, tell me, o wise one, what am I missing?
excon
The Y axis tells us WHAT is going up or down. Right now, we know that that number is a percentage of SOMETHING, but we don't know WHAT it is a percentage of.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Steve, I rarely agree with excon these days. You know that. But he's right. There is no way to correctly interpret what the graph means, because we don't know what the graph is measuring. Is it measuring a percentage of GDP? A percentage of the prior year's tax revenues? A percentage of the annual budget? A percentage of outlays/expenditures by the government? A percentage of the total assets of the US government? Or something else entirely?
I can assure you that tax revenues for 2009 are not 57% lower than they were in 2008. They are closer to 20% lower than they were last year. (See my numbers in the prior post.) Yet the graph says revenues went down by 57%. Something doesn't make sense. There is something about what the graph is measuring that we don't understand.
I agree with the point you are making... that the stimulus bill hasn't stimulated the economy, and as a result we're seeing a decline in tax revenues. That is absolutely true.
My point is simply that this graph doesn't really make that point. Or if it does, there is no explanation of HOW it is making that point. That's why I asked for a naarative to go with it. I want to understand the graph.
Elliot
Here is the original article.
Ex, you're right, but look at more than just the spikes you mention. Corporate tax revenues spiked the most under Reagan and Bush while individual tax revenues had a steady increase under Clinton. If you listened to the rhetoric out of the left over the last 20 years you would think the opposite would be true.
The main point has to do with what I mentioned about Obama delaying the release of the July budget numbers. Could this have something to do with it and why he was pushing so hard to pass health care legislation before the August recess?
I'll give it a shot.
The tax revenue from corporate sources fluctuates much greater than from individual sources. The deflections along the y axis are greater.
When the economy is good corporate tax revenue is really good and when the economy is bad then tax revenue from corporate sources are really poor. The same is true from individuals but not as dramatic.
The big question is what is percent of the tax revenue is from corporate vs individual sources? For example, is it 50/50 or is it 80/20 or is it 20/80?
What is one to do with this data?
If corporate tax revenue comprises say 40 or more percent of the federal tax revenue, then business tax policies should favor business growth. If LOWER corporate taxes fosters business growth, and likewise HIGHER federal tax revenue from corporate sources, then this is the policy to take.
JFK " a rising tide lifts all boats " :)
If HIGHER corporate taxes stifles or reduces growth, and thus LOWERS federal tax revenue from corporate sources, then this is the policy to avoid.
"you can't squeeze blood from a turnip" :(
G&P
What that graph does is confirm the recession and it demonstrates that the policy implemented to reduce taxes was effective. You should also question the huge tax take in the mid nineties, perhaps indicating an overheated economy and therefore a precursor to recession
Well one thing I notice, is that in 05, both lines begin to drop. The blue line takes a nose dive, and the orage line slowly creeps downward until 07, then it plummets.
So both plumments took place during the Bush years, and Obama can't figure out how to fix it yet?
Does that make them both idiots?
I feel this graph kicks dirt at modern politicians in general... Both sides are crooked as a barrel of fish hooks.
Bingo, and this spells trouble for Obama. Common sense says this is at least one reason why he delayed releasing the July numbers and pushed so hard to get Obamacare passed before the recess. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, the Dems are spending worse than a drunken sailor and the American people can see we don't have the money to pay for their agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Obama claims he won't cut Medicare benefits, will cut Medicare funding, hasn't raised taxes, won't raise taxes on the middle class, but that health care will be paid for. Members of his administration spent the weekend hinting that tax increases on the middle class were a possibility, then Gibbs came out yesterday and made it "clear" he wouldn't do that. Who the heck knows what to believe from these guys... other than Schumer came out and said yesterday that health care will get passed with or without Republican help. Where's the money going to come from?
I've been doing some of my own analysis.
The graph that Speechless posted in the OP measured percentage change from the prior year. Thus, if in year 1 there is a 10% increase from year 0, but in year 2 there is a 1% decrease from year 1, you are going to see a HUGE dip in the graph, even though the loss is only 1% for the year. I do not believe that this is a very truthful way of presenting the data. It's not a lie, but it is presenting the data with a particular twist in mind.
Instead of measuring percentage change, let's measure actual dollars. I am attaching the data as a graph.
Elliot
Then that begs the question why are we being deceived about it?
If you will check the graph, you'll notice that there are essentially two dips.
The first starts in 2002 and recovers in 2004. It is a rather gentle slope of roughly 2-3% per year. A bad loss, to be sure, but we recovered from it nicely.
However the second dip begins in 2007. From 2007 - 2008 there was again a loss. Bad but not tragic.
But in 2009, the dip is rather dramatic... a 15% drop in a single year.
Yowch.
THAT is the point that Speechless is trying to make. That is the point that the original graph was trying to make, but did a clumsy job of it.
This graphic is much more realistic.
Elliot
I don't think that it's a deception. The original graph is a legitimate way of looking at things... it just over-dramatizes the changes from a single year to the next. By looking at changes in percentage change (if that makes any sense) you get these huge shifts that look really sexy on paper and sell copies of newspapers and ad space on TV. It is still FACTUALLY correct. "If it bleeds, it leads" and all that. (I wonder if this is the OMB's graph, or just the AP's graph of the OMB data they were given. The answer to that might explain why the data is presented as it is.)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I think my graph, though, is less "over-dramatic" but still make the point in a clear manner. And the point itself is still valid.
Elliot
Hello again:
I can't see your graph, Elliot, but in any case, I don't see the point... We've entered into one of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. One would expect the results that Steve's chart shows, and apparently yours too.
Are you trying to affix blame? Are you trying to say that tax cuts work? Like I said, I ain't smart enough to figure it out.
excon
I'm just saying we ain't got the money to pay for Obamacare and that's why he delayed releasing the July numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Dude! Not having money has never stopped 'em from spending it before! Did it stop us from going to war?? Nooooo, it didn't.
excon
The graph is embedded as an attachment.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As for what I'm saying... in 2009, not only have we seen government spending increase by a huge amount due to the stimulus bill, the omnibus bill, the bailouts and TARP 2, and increases in welfare spending, we are also seeing a DECREASE in revenue of 15% across the board.
What I am saying is that increasing spending at the same time that we're seeing a decrease in income is catastrophic.
What I'm saying is that the decrease in income is happening despite the fact that Obama said that his stimulus bill would bootstrap the economy and get things going. Which is a major indicator that his stimulus bill has FAILED. (You, of course, will define it as a success.)
What the graph clearly shows is that after taxes are cut, there are jumps in revenue to the government. When taxes are raised or when the government artificially adds costs to the price of goods or services (as government regulation usually does), revenues go down.
The graph also shows that when properly managed, recessions can be shallow and can turn around easily, and when mismanaged they become deep and much harder to recover from.
I don't need to assign blame, excon. I'm just presenting the data. It's all right there to look at. You can assign your own blame.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Actually, I don't define it that way at all... Haven't you seen my screed "buy gold"?? I've said it countless times here... Why would you think I recommend that, if I thought the economy is going to recover?? I wouldn't...
What I HAVE said, is that the only way it COULD recover is with massive stimulus. I DIDN'T say, however, that they should stimulate via the printing press, and that's what they did...
So, in the SHORT term (longer than six months), it's going to have a REBOUNDING effect. It can't help BUT have that effect... Plus, they haven't even spent MOST of it YET. So, you got to give it a little more time. As a banker, you should know that it's going to take a while.
However, in the longer term, we're going have to deal with some serious inflation. They SAY they'll fight that fight down the road. I don't believe 'em.
Buy gold.
excon
Nope, it didn't. And we're being sold a bill of goods when Obama says he won't cut Medicare benefits but will cut Medicare spending, and won't raise our taxes but health care will be paid for. He can't have it both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Exactamundo... That's why we need to stop all this pussyfooting around, and go directly to single payer... It'll pay for itself AND cover all the uninsured...
excon
How so? Single payer just means the government will be the sole insurer, it will be the only entity to pay providers. Where is that money coming from?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Economic stimulas vs.tax cut 101
I'm reading and refraing this time
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Primarily from the health insurance industry profits that will no longer be going to them. It's billions and billions.. Secondarily from the savings that COULD occur within the health care industry itself.
In my view, when the government is the insurer of last resort, many of the CYA type medical procedures, which add billions of unnecessary expenses will be eliminated.
Frankly, I don't know HOW they'll do it in the micro sense... What I know is this: We spend twice what any other nation does and we get less. It seems to me that with good management we CAN get a good bang for our buck.
If you can show me a plan that does NOT include the government, but that GIVES us that missing bang, I'm all for it.. Frankly, I DO believe one is possible... But, the way things are, the Republicans as a whole are just paid shills for the health care industry... ANY plan that puts the kybosh on corporate profits is nixed..
Let me also add the BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS to the list of sell outs..
excon
Hello again, Steve:
I say the above, not because I'm an anti-profit kind of guy. I'm actually very PRO profit...
But, when corporate profits begin to erode our quality of life instead of adding to it, those profits become obscene.
It's just like the oil industry.. There IS going to be a time in the future when we WILL take that business away from those executives too, AND for the same reasons. But, we'll have that discussion then.
excon
As I have mentioned in the past, that "billions and billions" in profits is such a small portion of the actual cost of health care that even if all those profits were eliminated and plugged back into the system, it wouldn't change anything. The profits are less than 1/10th of 1% of expenses. Which means that the cost of insuring 46 million more people will NOT be covered from these profits. It won't even make a dent in the financial picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
That would require efficiencies that this government has never evidenced. What makes you so sure that they can do for health care what they have never been able to do for any other program... including Medicare and Medicaid and the VA system?Quote:
Secondarily from the savings that COULD occur within the health care industry itself.
And it will also result in the elimination of such preventive care tests as colonoscopies for those over 50, pap smears, breast cancer screening, etc.Quote:
In my view, when the government is the insurer of last resort, many of the CYA type medical procedures, which add billions of unnecessary expenses will be eliminated.
That's OK. Neither do they. That's the point.Quote:
Frankly, I don't know HOW they'll do it in the micro sense...
Can you tell me your source for this? We do indeed spend more per person than any other country. But we also get more... much more... than any other country. Better quality, quicker access, and front line treatments that aren't available anywhere else in the world.Quote:
What I know is this: We spend twice what any other nation does and we get less.
And again, you're assuming "good management". What part of our government's history leads you to believe that this "good management" is even possible?Quote:
It seems to me that with good management we CAN get a good bang for our buck.
That's because the only way to effectively generate efficiencies that lead to cost savings is to allow companies to make a profit. No profit, no incentive. No incentive, no efficiencies. Again, just look at any program the government runs and you can see what I mean.Quote:
If you can show me a plan that does NOT include the government, but that GIVES us that missing bang, I'm all for it.. Frankly, I DO believe one is possible... But, the way things are, the Republicans as a whole are just paid shills for the health care industry... ANY plan that puts the kybosh on corporate profits is nixed..
Profits lead to efficiencies. Competition leads to efficiencies. Competition leads to lower prices. Government interference eliminates both competition and profitability. Solution: eliminate the government not only from running health care, but from regulating it as well. Allow free market competition to take place. Open up the door to interstate competition within medical insurance. THAT is what creates efficiencies and cost cutting and savings.
I agree.Quote:
Let me also add the BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS to the list of sell outs..
Excon
This WSJ column pretty well explains my point...
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:43 AM. |