President to propose tax increases <shocker!>

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
No. Look at actual spending, receipts, gdp etc during the clinton years, and you'll quickly realize that the deficit was turned into a surplus for the most part because the economy boomed and receipts skyrocketed. Government spending didn't get reduced -- spending went way up. Government didn't "shrink" at all, it just looks like less because as a percentage of skyrocketing GDP with the advent of internet commerce the percentage is less.

We have had plenty of booming economies over the years, but that has not translated into reduction or elimination of deficits for the most part. The combination on government cutbacks (you did see the numbers I provided showing the largest drop in US government employees during Clinton's term?) and a fiscal policy targeting growth allowed for more receipts to balance the budget.

Government hardly grew much faster than inflation during Clinton's term, and it is a valid analysis to show government spending as a portion of GDP. It means growth was in the private sector and not via government spending (as is the case now).

Clinton raised taxes, streamlined government (scaling back staff and merging similar departments with overlapping responsibilities), and targeted spending towards encourage growth (empowerment zones, police, etc). If you really want to dig in and see what Clinton did while in office for the economy, you should read up on it and not rely on talking point sound bites.

Yes, government spending as a dollar amount increased during the Clinton years. But that has been the case every year for 60+ years (as far back as the data I'm seeing goes). I think inflation would guarantee that, if for no other reason. But only during the Clinton years has any of that been able to translate into a budget surplus. There have been quite a few instances, however, where government spending as a percentage of GDP went down, but never more than four consecutive years at a time. At least until Clinton took office and it went down 8 consecutive years.

As far as your claim of receipts "skyrocketing", here are the actual numbers:

1992 6342.3 17.21%
1993 6667.4 17.31%
1994 7085.2 17.76%
1995 7414.7 18.23%
1996 7838.5 18.54%
1997 8332.4 18.95%
1998 8793.5 19.58%
1999 9353.5 19.54%
2000 9951.5 20.35%

The dot com bubble started to grow in mid to late 1998, and really took off in 1999. By that time revenue had gone from 17.2% to 19.6%. The bubble pushed revenue to 20.3%. Seems like a non factor.

Also note that revenue as a percentage of GDP rose 3% over the duration of the Clinton presidency while spending dropped 4%. It wasn't a matter of revenue outpacing spending cuts, it was spending cuts outpacing revenue.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
...Finally, there is no income group that has wages taxes close to 50%. The highest marginal tax rate is 35%, and only applies to income over $379,150. Then there are deductions...
Spidey has been corrected time and again on marginal rates. He will claim to understand, then continue to post as though his taxes are calculated from the first dollar at the top rate.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
I haven't read the Ryan proposal in detail but my understanding is that he is proposing revenue neutral tax bracket reductions. In other words they will lower the rates and eliminate deductions. This idea has had pretty widespread support on this forum in the past but obviously the devil is in the details.

edit: I did some more reading and saw that Ryan wants to eliminate the capital gains and dividend taxes. This is a complete non starter, we should be moving in the other direction and raising the capital gains tax.
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
LOL. How could they "make it happen" without support from conservative Democrats and Republicans?

So you think it was a better and easier move to pass a several thousand page piece of shit than start taking real steps toward lowering health care costs?

You think a simple, small bill aimed solely at increasing the number of doctors rather than artificially limiting the supply would have been fought against?

People like you are the problem with this country. You can't think logically because it's not about end results for you, it's all about your team winning.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
I haven't read the Ryan proposal in detail but my understanding is that he is proposing revenue neutral tax bracket reductions. In other words they will lower the rates and eliminate deductions. This idea has had pretty widespread support on this forum in the past but obviously the devil is in the details.

He mentioned cutting the corporate tax rate and making it revenue neutral through the elimination of exemptions, etc (that go unnamed however, which is a problem), but the rest of his tax cuts are just straight up revenue lowering tax cuts.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
I haven't read the Ryan proposal in detail but my understanding is that he is proposing revenue neutral tax bracket reductions. In other words they will lower the rates and eliminate deductions. This idea has had pretty widespread support on this forum in the past but obviously the devil is in the details.


Yea his plan is light on what deductions he will remove. That and its easy to get reductions put back in but hard to raise taxs.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Clinton ran surpluses. The Republicans did what you mentioned, and didn't even get economic growth, cut taxes and got an economic crisis. Yeah, let's trust them on economy :)
Have someone educate you on the meaning of "short term" and "long term". Someone patient. Preferably someone patient with special ed training.

Your regular teacher will do.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Lets look at federal revenue by year, both in dollar amounts and percentage of GDP:

1997 8332.4 18.95%
1998 8793.5 19.58%
1999 9353.5 19.54%
2000 9951.5 20.35%
2001 10286.2 19.36%
2002 10642.3 17.41%
2003 11142.1 16.00%

The dot com bubble started in 98, burst in early 2000 and leveled off by the start of 2001.

Your numbers are wrong.
Federal Revenue

1998 $1772 Billion
1999 $1827 Billion
2000 $2025 Billion
2001 $1991 Billion
2002 $1853 Billion

Bubble covered roughly 1995–2000. The Stock Market Crash of 2000-2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Have someone educate you on the meaning of "short term" and "long term". Someone patient. Preferably someone patient with special ed training.

Your regular teacher will do.

Sorry, my teachers were advanced placement, special ed teachers are for future Republicans.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
So you think it was a better and easier move to pass a several thousand page piece of shit than start taking real steps toward lowering health care costs?

what does the length of the bill have to do with its effectiveness? Stop posting bs talking points...


Anna Karenina is thousand pages so it must be terrible?


regulation and governance is complex...


fisher price products dont work in the real world right?

If you want things to fit into a 2d dimensional mind they need to be dumbed down for you right>?
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Your numbers are wrong.
Federal Revenue

1998 $1772 Billion
1999 $1827 Billion
2000 $2025 Billion
2001 $1991 Billion
2002 $1853 Billion

Bubble covered roughly 1995–2000. The Stock Market Crash of 2000-2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...50_2015&units=p&state=US&chart=F0-fed&local=s

This is the source of my numbers. Market value isn't GDP, and the chart I already provided shows the dot com bubble blew up in 1998 and 1999. The first dot com IPO was in 1995, but there was no bubble until years later.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Clinton ran surpluses. The Republicans did what you mentioned, and didn't even get economic growth, cut taxes and got an economic crisis. Yeah, let's trust them on economy :)

Let me know when you're ready to have an actual discussion instead of posting irrelevant statements and straw man arguments.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Let me know when you're ready to have an actual discussion instead of posting irrelevant statements and straw man arguments.

Can we at least agree that there needs to be both revenue and spending changes to balance the budget?


Can we also agree that in recessions defects are sometimes necessary?

Lastly can we also agree that trickle down does not work?
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
Can we at least agree that there needs to be both revenue and spending changes to balance the budget?


Can we also agree that in recessions defects are sometimes necessary?

Lastly can we also agree that trickle down does not work?

This^^^
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
what does the length of the bill have to do with its effectiveness? Stop posting bs talking points...


Anna Karenina is thousand pages so it must be terrible?


regulation and governance is complex...


fisher price products dont work in the real world right?

If you want things to fit into a 2d dimensional mind they need to be dumbed down for you right>?

So longer is better simply be virtue of size? Then I guess the bible and all it's contradictions MUST be the word of god, right? It's so long, how could it NOT be good?

You're such a simpleton, I'm embarrassed for you.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Can we at least agree that there needs to be both revenue and spending changes to balance the budget?


Can we also agree that in recessions defects are sometimes necessary?

Lastly can we also agree that trickle down does not work?
Can we also agree that historically when we've "fixed" the deficit with tax increases and spending cuts, we've gotten tax increases without spending cuts?

Personally I'm fine with increasing tax rates to Clinton era rates for everyone, just as soon as we have two or three years where the deficit is significantly cut. (Meaning that the year's additional debt is 25% or more lower than the previous year's additional debt; moving things off budget or into "emergency bills" isn't going to cut it.) Right now we've chopped a couple days' spending, roughly half of which is merely smoke and mirrors, and from Democrats you'd think Herod had ordered the death of every first-born son AND his unwed mother. In reality, our 2011 budget is a whole Stimulus Maximus above the 2008 budget.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...50_2015&units=p&state=US&chart=F0-fed&local=s

This is the source of my numbers. Market value isn't GDP, and the chart I already provided shows the dot com bubble blew up in 1998 and 1999. The first dot com IPO was in 1995, but there was no bubble until years later.

That's the same site I used. Use his chart and then select Federal.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a

The dot com bubble was from 1995 till 2000. It's highest growth was right near the end so some of what you say is true, but I was watching my Intel and Microsoft stock doubling back in 1997 so the growth was well on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Can we also agree that historically when we've "fixed" the deficit with tax increases and spending cuts, we've gotten tax increases without spending cuts?

Personally I'm fine with increasing tax rates to Clinton era rates for everyone, just as soon as we have two or three years where the deficit is significantly cut. (Meaning that the year's additional debt is 25% or more lower than the previous year's additional debt; moving things off budget or into "emergency bills" isn't going to cut it.) Right now we've chopped a couple days' spending, roughly half of which is merely smoke and mirrors, and from Democrats you'd think Herod had ordered the death of every first-born son AND his unwed mother. In reality, our 2011 budget is a whole Stimulus Maximus above the 2008 budget.

The problem with your position about cutting spending first is were on the tail end of a bad recession. The people who are getting a small tax increase have already had their recovery...


I would be comfortable with a return to all the tax rates as they were under Clinton if they were gradually reinstated over 4-6 years after unemployment gets under 7 percent..
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Most of the jobs created under Clinton economic policies remained long after the dot com bubble burst. The dot com bubble may have been a big deal in the stock market, but it was a small part of the overall economic growth.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Most of the jobs created under Clinton economic policies remained long after the dot com bubble burst. The dot com bubble may have been a big deal in the stock market, but it was a small part of the overall economic growth.

Those jobs remained only because the dotcom bubble was quickly replaced by the housing bubble. If Bush/Greenspan hadn't slashed rates, the big recession would simply have happened sooner and you'd be blaming it on something other than housing.

You fools think you can fix bad policy with more bad policy. All you're really doing is postponing the day of reckoning.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Those jobs remained only because the dotcom bubble was quickly replaced by the housing bubble. If Bush/Greenspan hadn't slashed rates, the big recession would simply have happened sooner and you'd be blaming it on something other than housing.
.

So all of those jobs were construction jobs?

While I agree that a portion of the consumer demand was housing related you cant hang all of it just one industry...


You would be more accurate if you talked about personal credit as a bubble..
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I agree with most of what you wrote but the capital gains issue doesn't make sense. When you analyse an investment you discount it back at whatever rate you think is appropriate factoring in taxes. Of course the farther out the cash flow is the more it gets discounted. I don't know why you don't think people should pay taxes on income from inflation. If I buy a tbond my real return is essentially 0 but I still pay taxes on the coupon payments. Why should it be different if its a zero coupon bond and I sell for the capital gains?

Inflation isn't income IMO.

In your Tbond example you're recieveing the cash annually, arguably it is therefor less affected by inflation.

In the zero coupon bond example, where you receive the entire amount (principle plus accumulated interest) at maturity you can very get killed ny inflation. Think of examples where copuntries had very high rates of inflation; tying your money up for 20 yrs wouold be a killer.

Otherwise, bonds are, I think, a flawed comparison with many other types of LT cap assets. Bonds are set up so that you receive a RoR beyond inflation. The old formula for bond interest was = % for inflation = % for interest = % for risk. (I hear from the younger finance types that this has been modified)

Also, a bond can get hammered when inflation rises; you can't sell it for it's face value instead it must discounted. I.e. the inflation risk for a bond manifests itself not as the taxation of inflation, but as a loss of it's value/principal.

Fern
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
So all of those jobs were construction jobs?

While I agree that a portion of the consumer demand was housing related you cant hang all of it just one industry...


You would be more accurate if you talked about personal credit as a bubble..

/facepalm

Stop thinking so linearly. Quickly inflating home prices drove far more than construction. Money was flowing to every industry because it was flowing out of every orifice. Free money for everyone! Buy cars! Take vacations! Buy as much Chinese made shit as you can!