Simpson:"Tax increases are necessary"

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/04/17/simpson_says_tax_increases_are_necessary.html

At a panel discussion in Denver on reducing the nation's debt, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) said tax increases were needed to help balance the budget, according to the Colorado Statesman.

Said Simpson: "We've never had a war with no tax to support it, including the Revolution. People are told in Congress if they raise taxes by a nickel, they'll be strung up by their heels in the town square."

Simpson also recounted how he confronted anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and they exchanged words over the legacy of Ronald Reagan, claimed by both as their personal hero. When Reagan was president, he raised taxes 11 times, Simpson said, a bit of history that made Norquist squirm.

[memphis]

[King]

It's too bad this guys are getting kicked to the curb of the GOP.

The Teabaggers use the analogy of the family tightening it's budget as a reason to cut spending, but it's reached a point where the analogy is more like the parents have decided they only want to work part time so let's sell the furniture to pay the rent.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

is it possible to retroactively teabag retired RINOs?

[Lief 🗽]

It's too bad this guys are getting kicked to the curb of the GOP.

The Teabaggers use the analogy of the family tightening it's budget as a reason to cut spending, but it's reached a point where the analogy is more like the parents have decided they only want to work part time so let's sell the furniture to pay the rent.

Yeah. The "family tightening its budget" metaphor is pretty terrible for a long list of reasons, including that one. Also, a family can't just increase its revenue, while a government can. And if a family cuts back its budget, it means fewer vacations or consumer good purchases or maybe eating out less. It doesn't mean poor people and old people dying.

[King]

is it possible to retroactively teabag retired RINOs?

Anything is possible as long as Harry Reems is still alive.

[anvi]

If Reagan is really supposed to be the archetypal Republican hero, and if it's Reagan's governing practice and not some cardboard cut-out image of him that's important, then maybe it's teabaggers who are the RINOs.

[Хahar 🤔]

is it possible to retroactively teabag retired RINOs?

Anything is possible as long as Harry Reems is still alive.

Only if he's still alive? Haven't you ever heard of necrophilia?

[tpfkaw]

I was under the impression that Alan Simpson was a far-right extremist, and his entire deficit plan was far-right extremism.  Only conclusion I can draw?  Tax increases are far-right extremist.

[Sam Spade]

I never had any problem with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts.  But keep in mind that the US has never, during its history, collected more than 20% of GDP in revenue.

Moreover, in order to avert fiscal catastrophe in the next couple of years (3-5 max), you're going to have to cut at least 1/3rd of the present-day budget (ignoring the usual yearly increases), probably closer to 1/2 and this is basically going to require dismantling Medicare and Medicaid in present form, and remaking Social Security, not to mention getting rid of this silly new health care law for something that actually makes fiscal sense.

No, and this doesn't mean the Ryan nonsense, which simply tries to transfer Medicaid costs onto the states, much like Obamacare does also.

[King]

I was under the impression that Alan Simpson was a far-right extremist, and his entire deficit plan was far-right extremism.  Only conclusion I can draw?  Tax increases are far-right extremist.

That would be a completely illogical conclusion, but please be my guest and draw it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I was under the impression that Alan Simpson was a far-right extremist, and his entire deficit plan was far-right extremism.  Only conclusion I can draw?  Tax increases are far-right extremist.

That would be a completely illogical conclusion, but please be my guest and draw it.

Nobody ever accused wormy of being logical.

[krazen1211]

I never had any problem with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts.  But keep in mind that the US has never, during its history, collected more than 20% of GDP in revenue.

Moreover, in order to avert fiscal catastrophe in the next couple of years (3-5 max), you're going to have to cut at least 1/3rd of the present-day budget (ignoring the usual yearly increases), probably closer to 1/2 and this is basically going to require dismantling Medicare and Medicaid in present form, and remaking Social Security, not to mention getting rid of this silly new health care law for something that actually makes fiscal sense.

No, and this doesn't mean the Ryan nonsense, which simply tries to transfer Medicaid costs onto the states, much like Obamacare does also.

States have already been doing that. State revenues have skyrocketed from 8.72% of GDP in 1990 to 11.15% of GDP in 2007.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

memphis, whether it's obvious or not, Simpson has been ripping the pubs lately and I think he did a fine job overall on the commission Obama appointed him to with Bowles, and is now ignoring.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

what was the %GDP of federal income tax in jan 1981 compared to jan 1989?

[Brittain33]

States have already been doing that. State revenues have skyrocketed from 8.72% of GDP in 1990 to 11.15% of GDP in 2007.

Are there data for where they went since the recession hit? State revenues fell much faster than GDP. Also, wasn't 1990 a recession year?

[krazen1211]

Seems to go up about 1% per decade.


http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1980_2016&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy12&chart=F0-state&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

Fiscal Years 1980 to 2016         
Total Direct Revenue      Total Direct Revenue -state   
      pct GDP   
1980      7.63   
1981      7.68   
1982      8.05   
1983      8.06   
1984      8.03   
1985      8.28   
1986      8.58   
1987      8.75   
1988      8.52   
1989      8.58   
1990      8.72   
1991      8.62   
1992      9.07   
1993      9.25   
1994      8.99   
1995      9.32   
1996      9.51   
1997      9.71   
1998      9.81   
1999      9.61   
2000      9.91   
2001      8.5   
2002      7.16   
2003      8.38   
2004      10.05   
2005      9.77   
2006      10.11   
2007      11.15   
2008      8.16   
2009      4.41   

[krazen1211]

what was the %GDP of federal income tax in jan 1981 compared to jan 1989?

Fiscal Years 1980 to 2016         
Total Direct Revenue      Total Direct Revenue -fed   
      pct GDP   
1980      18.55   
1981      19.17   
1982      18.99   
1983      16.99   
1984      16.95   
1985      17.4   
1986      17.25   
1987      18.04   
1988      17.83   
1989      18.08   
1990      17.79   
1991      17.61   
1992      17.21   
1993      17.31   
1994      17.76   
1995      18.23   
1996      18.54   
1997      18.95   
1998      19.58   
1999      19.54   
2000      20.35   
2001      19.36   
2002      17.41   
2003      16   
2004      15.84   
2005      17.04   
2006      17.96   
2007      18.24   
2008      17.57   
2009      14.91   
2010      14.75   

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

what was the %GDP of federal income tax in jan 1981 compared to jan 1989?

Fiscal Years 1980 to 2016         
Total Direct Revenue      Total Direct Revenue -fed   
      pct GDP   
1980      18.55   
1981      19.17   
1982      18.99   
1983      16.99   
1984      16.95   
1985      17.4   
1986      17.25   
1987      18.04   
1988      17.83   
1989      18.08   

so the economy boomed while federal taxes shrank....just as I thought it did.  the 1986 tax reform took away deductions for second mortgages, which is probably why you see an increase of ~1% following 1986

[Sbane]

what was the %GDP of federal income tax in jan 1981 compared to jan 1989?

Fiscal Years 1980 to 2016         
Total Direct Revenue      Total Direct Revenue -fed   
      pct GDP   
1980      18.55   
1981      19.17   
1982      18.99   
1983      16.99   
1984      16.95   
1985      17.4   
1986      17.25   
1987      18.04   
1988      17.83   
1989      18.08   

so the economy boomed while federal taxes shrank....just as I thought it did.  the 1986 tax reform took away deductions for second mortgages, which is probably why you see an increase of ~1% following 1986

What happened to debt during the 80s?

There's been enough BS. Spending needs to be cut and taxes need to be raised. Nothing else will work. A full blown debt crisis is easily avoidable for a country of our size and we need to get serious about it now.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Tax increases are necessary, sure.

Or, we could maybe stop fighting some of those three wars we currently have going on. Maybe learn from the past and not get in them in the first place. But what do I know?

[Sbane]

Or, we could maybe stop fighting some of those three wars we currently have going on. Maybe learn from the past and not get in them in the first place. But what do I know?

Yes, getting our expenditure on defence as a share of GDP down from  nearly 5 to about 3% is necessary as well. Too bad both parties like bombing things.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

what was the %GDP of federal income tax in jan 1981 compared to jan 1989?

Fiscal Years 1980 to 2016         
Total Direct Revenue      Total Direct Revenue -fed   
      pct GDP   
1980      18.55   
1981      19.17   
1982      18.99   
1983      16.99   
1984      16.95   
1985      17.4   
1986      17.25   
1987      18.04   
1988      17.83   
1989      18.08   

so the economy boomed while federal taxes shrank....just as I thought it did.  the 1986 tax reform took away deductions for second mortgages, which is probably why you see an increase of ~1% following 1986

What happened to debt during the 80s?

  that was more of a result of a double dip recession

[opebo]

what was the %GDP of federal income tax in jan 1981 compared to jan 1989?

Fiscal Years 1980 to 2016         
Total Direct Revenue      Total Direct Revenue -fed   
      pct GDP   
1980      18.55   
1981      19.17   
1982      18.99   
1983      16.99   
1984      16.95   
1985      17.4   
1986      17.25   
1987      18.04   
1988      17.83   
1989      18.08   

so the economy boomed while federal taxes shrank....just as I thought it did.  the 1986 tax reform took away deductions for second mortgages, which is probably why you see an increase of ~1% following 1986

Two points regarding that - firstly, the economy during the 1980s was terrible (though obviously better than now), and secondly, a drop from 18.55% to 18.08% is hardly a major shrinkage of taxation.  If you'll notice, the percentage of taxation has shrunk far more from 2000 to the present, and the economy has totally collapsed.

The fact is of course that taxation has almost no bearing on the economy, particularly taxation of the wealthy.

[Sbane]

what was the %GDP of federal income tax in jan 1981 compared to jan 1989?

Fiscal Years 1980 to 2016         
Total Direct Revenue      Total Direct Revenue -fed   
      pct GDP   
1980      18.55   
1981      19.17   
1982      18.99   
1983      16.99   
1984      16.95   
1985      17.4   
1986      17.25   
1987      18.04   
1988      17.83   
1989      18.08   

so the economy boomed while federal taxes shrank....just as I thought it did.  the 1986 tax reform took away deductions for second mortgages, which is probably why you see an increase of ~1% following 1986

What happened to debt during the 80s?

  that was more of a result of a double dip recession

So the recession caused the debt but a "boom" wasn't able to bring us back to even? The 90's boom did.....I wonder why. Something Clinton did in 1994 that was also quite unpopular perhaps?