CBO: Tax hikes unnecessary

[Gustaf]

This is for you Carl:

From the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18928600):

"A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note."

The Economist was once a reputable publication.  Over the past decade it has been a proponent of more government.

The assertion that "(t)he White House is offering an 83%-17% split..." (spending cuts to tax increases) is a lie!

Now, Obama has proposed between one and two trillion dollars in tax increases, on a supposed four billion dollar curtailment of the deficits over a ten year period.  So, the proposed tax increase is between twenty five and fifty percent split!

More significantly, tax increases (unless they have an explicit end clause) continue forever unless changed, whereas budgetary spending limits have no legal effect.  What this means is that a President with but one third (plus one) of the votes in either House of Congress could keep a tax increase in effect, whereas a simple majority in Congress can disregard prior commitments to limitations on spending.

So, yes, I can see why you like this proposal.  You love higher taxes and are willing to make promises which will never be kept on reduced spending, as the price to get bigger government.

Like 'Lucy,' you are promising to 'hold' the (line on spending/football), but only one totally gullible would believe such a promise.

I don't love higher taxes. And I don't know who Lucy is. So I'm afraid you lost me completely.

(And of course calling the Economist a proponent of big government is beyond ludicrous. They even say they're not in the excerpt I posted!)

[Gustaf]

I've been reading the Economist for a decade (I'm not old enough to have done it longer) and I can say with some confidence that it's not a left-wing publication. It has a firm committment to small government and free markets.

I haven't studied the specifics of the proposals of the GOP or Obama (I have no reason to think Obama would come up with a good solution per se - I didn't support him in 2008), but I'm more inclined to trus the Economist than you, to be honest. My point in the article was not what Obama has proposed but what should be done and there I agree with their reasoning - i.e. even though spending cuts should be the main tool in fixing the deficit taxes should play part as well.

[Gustaf]

I've been reading the Economist for a decade (I'm not old enough to have done it longer) and I can say with some confidence that it's not a left-wing publication. It has a firm committment to small government and free markets.

I haven't studied the specifics of the proposals of the GOP or Obama (I have no reason to think Obama would come up with a good solution per se - I didn't support him in 2008), but I'm more inclined to trus the Economist than you, to be honest. My point in the article was not what Obama has proposed but what should be done and there I agree with their reasoning - i.e. even though spending cuts should be the main tool in fixing the deficit taxes should play part as well.

I note that you "trust" anyone who pushes for tax increases.

Further I noted that the tax increases are real, whereas the "cuts' are purely illusory.

If the cuts are so illusory, why do you even support them?

And I trust one of the world's best known and most reputable magazines over a random poster on the internet, yyes. Regardless of whether they support higher taxes or not. Maybe you should also consider using a standard other than whether someone agrees with you or not to decide how trustworthy they are? The assumption that only those who confirm your opinion can be listened to is a dangerous recipe for intellectual rigidity.

[Gustaf]

I've been reading the Economist for a decade (I'm not old enough to have done it longer) and I can say with some confidence that it's not a left-wing publication. It has a firm committment to small government and free markets.

I haven't studied the specifics of the proposals of the GOP or Obama (I have no reason to think Obama would come up with a good solution per se - I didn't support him in 2008), but I'm more inclined to trus the Economist than you, to be honest. My point in the article was not what Obama has proposed but what should be done and there I agree with their reasoning - i.e. even though spending cuts should be the main tool in fixing the deficit taxes should play part as well.

I note that you "trust" anyone who pushes for tax increases.

Further I noted that the tax increases are real, whereas the "cuts' are purely illusory.

If the cuts are so illusory, why do you even support them?

And I trust one of the world's best known and most reputable magazines over a random poster on the internet, yyes. Regardless of whether they support higher taxes or not. Maybe you should also consider using a standard other than whether someone agrees with you or not to decide how trustworthy they are? The assumption that only those who confirm your opinion can be listened to is a dangerous recipe for intellectual rigidity.

I understand you inflexibly (and rigidly) find The Economist infallible because their solution to fiscal problems is "more taxes." 

Cutting, expedites, at least significantly is something you and The Economist find "vicious."

Now, apparently you have NOT been following the debate concerning the position of most Republicans in Congress is to insist on enforcement mechanisms for budget cuts, not empty promises from serial liars like Obama.

No, I don't find them infallible - I just trust them more than I trust you. There's a big difference. I often disagree with their conclusions.

There solution is not more taxes and they are not opposed to spending cuts. From the same article (which I assume you did not read):

"The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink."

They also lauded Paul Ryan's proposal when it first came, arguing that Obama needed to accept that large spending cuts would have ot be made.

[Gustaf]

I notice (again) you both ignore points I made, because you cannot deal with them, and make false assertions.

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)  Obama is on record as opposing this measure, and I assume you join him, as you both want more government and higher taxes.

Second, of course you reflexively disagree with me. 

I want less government, you want more government, and more government, and more government, ad infinitum.

I want a limit on taxes whereas you want more and more and more and higher and higher and higher taxes.

Third, if you reread the article you posted, you will see where The Economist approved of the call for more taxes.  Did you miss that?  Oh, yes its nice to see The Economist is  willing to consider the idea of some reduction in the rate of increase of expenditures, provided that first more tax money is delivered to Moloch/Leviathan.  So generous of them.

I have not made any false assertions nor ignored any of your "points" (if one can call them that). You have, however. In this post for instance, you claim that I want more government ad inifitum (are you trying to impress me with Latin words now? Didn't work.) even though I explicitly said I didn't. The same goes for more and higher taxes.

You also assume that I join Obama on an issue even though I did not even support him in 2008. Which of course makes little sense.

Finally, if YOU reread the article you will see that The Economist criticizes Obama for not wanting to accept large spending cuts, favours large spending cuts and argues that spending cuts should be the main part of solving the problem.

[Gustaf]

I notice (again) you both ignore points I made, because you cannot deal with them, and make false assertions.

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)  Obama is on record as opposing this measure, and I assume you join him, as you both want more government and higher taxes.

Second, of course you reflexively disagree with me.  

I want less government, you want more government, and more government, and more government, ad infinitum.

I want a limit on taxes whereas you want more and more and more and higher and higher and higher taxes.

Third, if you reread the article you posted, you will see where The Economist approved of the call for more taxes.  Did you miss that?  Oh, yes its nice to see The Economist is  willing to consider the idea of some reduction in the rate of increase of expenditures, provided that first more tax money is delivered to Moloch/Leviathan.  So generous of them.

I have not made any false assertions nor ignored any of your "points" (if one can call them that). You have, however. In this post for instance, you claim that I want more government ad inifitum (are you trying to impress me with Latin words now? Didn't work.) even though I explicitly said I didn't. The same goes for more and higher taxes.

You also assume that I join Obama on an issue even though I did not even support him in 2008. Which of course makes little sense.

Finally, if YOU reread the article you will see that The Economist criticizes Obama for not wanting to accept large spending cuts, favours large spending cuts and argues that spending cuts should be the main part of solving the problem.

First, you have once again ignored my point about the enforceability of any promises on curtailing federal spending.  Why?

Second, as I previously noted, the proposed Obama tax increases are far more than the 17% of the suggested deal you have suggested is the case.  Why do you insist on giving false and misleading allegations?  Is this just another case of 'lowballing'?  Just how much in new/higher taxes do you want to impose on the American people?


Third, you did make it clear that you don't want to tax Americans to death (you are prepared to allow us to keep enough of our own money to survive to pay more taxes in the future).  So, NO, I have not suggested that you "... want more government ad inifitum..." but rather you will limit it short of killing us.  

I have bolded some parts for you.

The rest is, as most of what you've been posting here, not really relevant to anything I've said.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

First, I will correct my error my earlier error by repeatedly noting that you have expressed a willingness to allow Americans to keep just enough money to survive on so that they can keep on paying more and more taxes.

Second, I repeat again, that you keep ignoring the point that Obama is pushing for a tax increase far larger than you alledged.  Why do you keep ignoring this point?

Third, promises to maybe reduce the rate of increase of government spending someday are generally unenforceable.  The program I suggested will make such spending limits enforceable, which I suppose is why you keep ignoring it.

Is it that enforceable limits on government is "irrelevant" to you way of viewing government?

So, should I interpret that first paragraph as an apology for your deliberate lie about my position? If so, I'll gladly accept that apology.

As I stated repeatedly I don't particularly care about Obama's position per se. I'm not an Obama-supporter. However, I'm more inclined to trust the Economist numbers on his deal than I am to trust yours. At least until you can provide some independent source backing up your claim.

I don't mind enforceable limits on spending. I just don't think that discussion is particularly relevant to the points I've been making in this thread.

See, in my country there is a cap on spending increases, so the state is only allowed to increase spending by a certain percentage each year. And the government is also obliged to run a surplus of 1% of GDP. And Sweden also has a top-down budget process - that is, parliament must first agree on aggregate spending and accept that as an entire package, prohibiting lobby groups adding on pork during the final days of passage. I'm a strong supporter of all of those measures, but it doesn't really affect my stand in this thread.

[Gustaf]

Hmm.

According to Reuters, President Obama is supporting a plan which includes $1.2 trillion in new revenues  with  $2.55 trillion is supposed savings over 10 years. 

Now, to me that adds up (if we assume the “savings” actually occur), to a total of $3.75 trillion.

According to my calculator, $1.2 trillion is 32 percent of $3.75 trillion.

Now, I had previously pointed out that the revenue enhancements, or to be more honest about it, tax increases would be between one and two trillion.

On the other hand,  Gustaf kept trying to peddle the myth that such revenue enhancements would only amount to 17 percent of the package.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-usa-debt-gang-idUSTRE76I5CK20110719

The plan cited in the article is not Obama's plan, and thus not the plan we were discussing earlier. Furthermore, the plan includes tax-cuts as well as tax hikes which means your math is misleading: "Conrad was quick to say that while there are $1.2 trillion in new revenues, the overall plan envisions a $1.5 trillion tax cut that would be achieved through broad tax reforms."

[Gustaf]

Hmm.

According to Reuters, President Obama is supporting a plan which includes $1.2 trillion in new revenues  with  $2.55 trillion is supposed savings over 10 years. 

Now, to me that adds up (if we assume the “savings” actually occur), to a total of $3.75 trillion.

According to my calculator, $1.2 trillion is 32 percent of $3.75 trillion.

Now, I had previously pointed out that the revenue enhancements, or to be more honest about it, tax increases would be between one and two trillion.

On the other hand,  Gustaf kept trying to peddle the myth that such revenue enhancements would only amount to 17 percent of the package.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-usa-debt-gang-idUSTRE76I5CK20110719

The plan cited in the article is not Obama's plan, and thus not the plan we were discussing earlier. Furthermore, the plan includes tax-cuts as well as tax hikes which means your math is misleading: "Conrad was quick to say that while there are $1.2 trillion in new revenues, the overall plan envisions a $1.5 trillion tax cut that would be achieved through broad tax reforms."

Gustaf,

Like Obama, you have ducked and dodged continuously.

Like Obama, you want more taxes.

You seem to also agree with Obama that any funds in private hands are "tax expenditures."

So, since you say you don't want to tax Americans to death, just how much higher do you want taxes to go?  Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?

I've not ducked or dodged anything (you have though, in a rather irritating fashion). I'm not even sure what your third sentence is talking about but I'll assume it's some other irrelevant nonsense.

As regards the exact tax level that the US should have I haven't really studied that issue in sufficient detail to give a precise answer. My broad impression is that the American tax system seems quite mangled and I suspect in dire need of reform. Such a reform should probably aim to cut rates while eliminating the various credits or breaks that currently exist. This is especially true for corporate taxes, where the rate is quite high but the various deductions, etc push down the effective rate. Over the longer term I suspect such reform could cut the effective rate while still bringing in equal revenue.

I also have the impression that things like the capital gains tax could be raised (possibly paired with a cut in regular income tax), because I'm unconvinced that net benefits outweigh negative consequences as such low levels of taxation as currently is the fact in that field.

On the spending side, there could also be a substantial cleaning up. There seems to be quite a bit of frivolous spending on things like farm subsidies and various pork projects. An overhaul of the budget process, moving it to more of a top-down approach would probably do a lot to fix that.

According to wikipedia, all levels of government in the US currently bring in just above a quarter of GDP in revenue while spending close to 40% of GDP. Some of that is cyclical and will disappear by itself. Still I suspect the overall level would probably have to get closer to 30%.

In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.

[Gustaf]

Hmm.

According to Reuters, President Obama is supporting a plan which includes $1.2 trillion in new revenues  with  $2.55 trillion is supposed savings over 10 years. 

Now, to me that adds up (if we assume the “savings” actually occur), to a total of $3.75 trillion.

According to my calculator, $1.2 trillion is 32 percent of $3.75 trillion.

Now, I had previously pointed out that the revenue enhancements, or to be more honest about it, tax increases would be between one and two trillion.

On the other hand,  Gustaf kept trying to peddle the myth that such revenue enhancements would only amount to 17 percent of the package.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-usa-debt-gang-idUSTRE76I5CK20110719

The plan cited in the article is not Obama's plan, and thus not the plan we were discussing earlier. Furthermore, the plan includes tax-cuts as well as tax hikes which means your math is misleading: "Conrad was quick to say that while there are $1.2 trillion in new revenues, the overall plan envisions a $1.5 trillion tax cut that would be achieved through broad tax reforms."

Gustaf,

Like Obama, you have ducked and dodged continuously.

Like Obama, you want more taxes.

You seem to also agree with Obama that any funds in private hands are "tax expenditures."

So, since you say you don't want to tax Americans to death, just how much higher do you want taxes to go?  Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?

I've not ducked or dodged anything (you have though, in a rather irritating fashion). I'm not even sure what your third sentence is talking about but I'll assume it's some other irrelevant nonsense.

As regards the exact tax level that the US should have I haven't really studied that issue in sufficient detail to give a precise answer. My broad impression is that the American tax system seems quite mangled and I suspect in dire need of reform. Such a reform should probably aim to cut rates while eliminating the various credits or breaks that currently exist. This is especially true for corporate taxes, where the rate is quite high but the various deductions, etc push down the effective rate. Over the longer term I suspect such reform could cut the effective rate while still bringing in equal revenue.

I also have the impression that things like the capital gains tax could be raised (possibly paired with a cut in regular income tax), because I'm unconvinced that net benefits outweigh negative consequences as such low levels of taxation as currently is the fact in that field.

On the spending side, there could also be a substantial cleaning up. There seems to be quite a bit of frivolous spending on things like farm subsidies and various pork projects. An overhaul of the budget process, moving it to more of a top-down approach would probably do a lot to fix that.

According to wikipedia, all levels of government in the US currently bring in just above a quarter of GDP in revenue while spending close to 40% of GDP. Some of that is cyclical and will disappear by itself. Still I suspect the overall level would probably have to get closer to 30%.

In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.

Well,

First let me thank you for partially responding to my questions.

Second, let me educate you.  The term "tax expenditure" is used by people like you who believe that any funds left in private hands (not seized by the government) is a "tax expenditure."

Third, of course the tax structure is mangled since the most profitable route to making/retaining wealth is to obtain a tax preference (often coupled with a subsidy).  The aircraft manufacturers got such a preferenace as part of Porkulus (which I opposed and I seem to remember you supported).

Fourth, there is considerable improvement on the expenditure side from state and local governments in most of the United States (Illinois being a notable exception).  However, the federal government continues its wild spree of spending unabated.

Fifth, for a little math, increasing the aggregate tax rate to 40% from the current approximately 25% would be an increase of 60%!  Now, I have no doubt you have no problem with such a massive tax increase but Americans will. 

Have I actually used the term tax expenditure anywhere in this thread? I don't think I have. Thus I'm not sure how that is relevant to anything.

Furthermore, you seem to remember wrongly, since I never said I supported the stimulus bill. You just assumed that I did, just like you've been assuming things about my positions throughout this thread.

Of course, I never said that I wanted taxes raised by that much. I'll note though that you want to cut spending by about 40% (or more, since you seem to think taxes are already too high?) I doubt most American voters would like that either. Of course, what American voters would like will presumably be made evident in elections and has no relevance to what the right course of action is. The point of discussion is to argue for one's own position, not to try and figure out what everyone else thinks so one can repeat the same thing.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

Let's see what you said and logical conclusions flowing therefrom:

You were kind enough to answer my question as to how much of the economy should be consumed by government.

You said between thirty to forty per cent.

Now, unless you are advocating deficit spending (which you seemed to be arguing against), then if current revenues to government amounts to twenty-five per cent of the economy (as you have contended), and those revenues are to raised to equal expenditures of 40 oer cent of the economy, that would amount to a 60% increase.  Or does Sweden have some kind of 'new math'?

That is assuming the 40% level, which is the top of the interval. Which makes it rather dishonest. Besides, I'm not really prescribing that as what I think should be done now in the US.

I realize that to you the world is composed of simple black and white building blocks, but to me the world is a complex place where we get to answer certain questions progressively in better and better ways.

Many policies that were standard 20, 50 or 100 years ago are now recognized as terrible. I don't think that all the policies thought efficient today will be judged similarly in 20 years.

I have certain ideological principles - I think everyone should have the right to education and I think a civilized society should provide basic subsistence to people who can't do so themselves. I also think that the fundamental freedom of the individual to work and live wherever she wants requires that the income derived from one's work is left largely in the hands of that individual to use freely. Thus, I have a basic vision of a free and just society.

However, I'm not convinced what specific tax policies best achieve these goals. The state has an important role in correcting certain market failures. At the same time, the political process tends to get corrupted and deliver bribes to powerful lobby groups. This makes the formulation of optimal policy decisions rather tricky.

As a recent economics paper I read suggested, a combination of Swedish spending emphasis with American spending levels might be welfare improving. Basically, I think there are lessons to be learned from different systems.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

In my Reply #100 on this thread on July 20, 2011 I asked you:
“Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?”
In your reply #101 on July 20, 2011 you said:
“In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.”
In your reply #109 you seem to be backing off your prior statement when you said:
“That is assuming the 40% level, which is the top of the interval. Which makes it rather dishonest.”
So, somewhere at least 30 percent but less than 40%?
Well, according to my sources, total government spending or 2010 amounts to approximately 39.97% of the GDP in the United States.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
So, given the numbers, and your enthusiasm for tax increases, your 40% number seemed to be what you were actually advocating.
Now, the major change in increase in government spending over the last few years has been at the federal (national) level where expenditures grew from 20.65% of GDP in 2008 to 23.82% in 2010.  For the mathematically challenged, that means that the federal government is consuming 3.17% MORE of the GDP in 2010 than it did in 2008!
By contrast, expenditures of the states increased by only 0.37% during the same period while local government expenditures actually decreased by approximately 0.10 per cent of the GDP during the same period!
Now, three percent of the GDP would be more than $400 billion dollars.
So, if the federal government had been no more profligate than the state governments, then the federal annual deficit would be at least $400 billion dollars lower than is the actual case.
So, the problem isn’t inadequate revenues, but rather excessive expenditures.

You're not making any sense. Since I said between 30 and 40 and not above 30 in the short-term assuming 40% is dishonest. I explicitly made the point that I don't think the level is of paramount importance and needs a lot more detailed analysis.

Anyway, since I said I favour spending cuts from the current level of 39.97% saying that I seem to be in favour of 40% is clearly outright wrong, wouldn't you say?

As for the rest of what you say, what the problem is comes down to some sort of value judgement, doesn't it? The American democratic system has decided that it wants to spend 40% of GDP without actually taxing people for it. Whether to give up the spending or the taxation or parts of both is a political decision that will have to be made. The vast majority of the American voters agree with me that it should be both. A relatively small minority, including you wants to not touch taxes at all.

(And of course Ernest makes a valid point that you keep ignoring - you can't really compare revenue in 2008 to 2010 without accounting for the crisis and the changing demographics)

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

In my Reply #100 on this thread on July 20, 2011 I asked you:
“Or to put it more simply, at what point will you stop pushing to more and higher taxes?”
In your reply #101 on July 20, 2011 you said:
“In terms of my ideal tax level for an imagined nation, I'm not sure. Probably somehwere within the range of 30-40% of GDP.”
In your reply #109 you seem to be backing off your prior statement when you said:
“That is assuming the 40% level, which is the top of the interval. Which makes it rather dishonest.”
So, somewhere at least 30 percent but less than 40%?
Well, according to my sources, total government spending or 2010 amounts to approximately 39.97% of the GDP in the United States.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
So, given the numbers, and your enthusiasm for tax increases, your 40% number seemed to be what you were actually advocating.
Now, the major change in increase in government spending over the last few years has been at the federal (national) level where expenditures grew from 20.65% of GDP in 2008 to 23.82% in 2010.  For the mathematically challenged, that means that the federal government is consuming 3.17% MORE of the GDP in 2010 than it did in 2008!
By contrast, expenditures of the states increased by only 0.37% during the same period while local government expenditures actually decreased by approximately 0.10 per cent of the GDP during the same period!
Now, three percent of the GDP would be more than $400 billion dollars.
So, if the federal government had been no more profligate than the state governments, then the federal annual deficit would be at least $400 billion dollars lower than is the actual case.
So, the problem isn’t inadequate revenues, but rather excessive expenditures.

You're not making any sense. Since I said between 30 and 40 and not above 30 in the short-term assuming 40% is dishonest. I explicitly made the point that I don't think the level is of paramount importance and needs a lot more detailed analysis.

Anyway, since I said I favour spending cuts from the current level of 39.97% saying that I seem to be in favour of 40% is clearly outright wrong, wouldn't you say?

As for the rest of what you say, what the problem is comes down to some sort of value judgement, doesn't it? The American democratic system has decided that it wants to spend 40% of GDP without actually taxing people for it. Whether to give up the spending or the taxation or parts of both is a political decision that will have to be made. The vast majority of the American voters agree with me that it should be both. A relatively small minority, including you wants to not touch taxes at all.

(And of course Ernest makes a valid point that you keep ignoring - you can't really compare revenue in 2008 to 2010 without accounting for the crisis and the changing demographics)

So, while you want taxes somewhere (you remain vague) above 30% of the GDP (but somewhere less than 40%, you now say), but you don't want it now (presumably you want to sneak such increases in when people aren't looking).

You and Ernest want more and higher taxes.

I get it. 

You and Ernest want more and higher taxes.

Facts mean nothing to you.

You and Ernest want more and higher taxes.

lol

If anyone here is stubbornly ignoring facts, it's you. I don't get why distorting my position is more important to you than trying to reason about the best way to tackle the deficit.

[Gustaf]

Don't you guys have something better to do?  Get out in the sun, take a jog...

Hard to get out in the sun this time of night.

I mean in general.   

I'm at work, so getting out in the sun is not an alternative.

[Gustaf]

Don't you guys have something better to do?  Get out in the sun, take a jog...

Hard to get out in the sun this time of night.

I mean in general.   

I'm at work, so getting out in the sun is not an alternative.

Alright, fair enough, but why debate CARL?  I mean, both you and True Federalist seem pretty bright guys (dispite any disagreements we may have), but dont you have better things to do than talking to brick walls? 

During day hours in Sweden, relatively few Americans are on, so there typically isn't much interaction on the boards when I'm at work.

Besides, I often find it insightful to debate people who lack argumentative skill and an even remotely objective view of the world. It's why I engage people like Opebo or BRTD as well.

I'll admit that Carl seems to have run out of insults. Judging by his last post there isn't going to be anything interesting emerging from this.