[speechlesstx]

Just a little graph on federal tax revenues courtesy of AP and the OMB...



OK all you smart people, tell me what you see in this graph.

[ETWolverine]

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.

[futpucker]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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."

[speechlesstx]

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.

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.

[excon]

OK all you smart people, tell me what you see in this graph.

Hello, Steve:

Tax receipts, they is going down. Shouldn't be surprise during a recession...

excon

[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

[speechlesstx]

Hello, Steve:

Tax receipts, they is going down. Shouldn't be surprise during a recession....

excon

You are absolutely correct. Now dig a little deeper in that brain of yours.

[speechlesstx]

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

Who cares about the Y axis?

[ETWolverine]

I cited my source, "courtesy of AP and the OMB." The graphic states, "Office of Management and Budget: Treasury Department."

I'm not questioning the source. I'm just looking for a naarative to go with the graph, because I don't understand it.

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

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

Who cares about the Y axis?

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.

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[inthebox]

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

[paraclete]

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

[andrewc24301]

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.

[speechlesstx]

"you can't squeeze blood from a turnip" :(

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.

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?

[ETWolverine]

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

[speechlesstx]

Then that begs the question why are we being deceived about it?

[ETWolverine]

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