Highest Social Security Increase Coming in 2023 in the U.S.

Sure WHEN their too high, studies I've seen put it about 70% EFFECTIVE rates

Recent Studies Find Raising Taxes on High-Income Households Would Not Harm the Economy
https://www.cbpp.org/research/recen...-income-households-would-not-harm-the-economy


This paper examines how changes to the individual income tax affect long-term economic growth. The structure and financing of a tax change are critical to achieving economic growth. Tax rate cuts may encourage individuals to work, save, and invest, but if the tax cuts are not financed by immediate spending cuts they will likely also result in an increased federal budget deficit, which in the long-term will reduce national saving and raise interest rates. The net impact on growth is uncertain, but many estimates suggest it is either small or negative. Base-broadening measures can eliminate the effect of tax rate cuts on budget deficits, but at the same time they also reduce the impact on labor supply, saving, and investment and thus reduce the direct impact on growth. However, they also reallocate resources across sectors toward their highest-value economic use, resulting in increased efficiency and potentially raising the overall size of the economy. The results suggest that not all tax changes will have the same impact on growth. Reforms that improve incentives, reduce existing subsidies, avoid windfall gains, and avoid deficit financing will have more auspicious effects on the long-term size of the economy, but may also create trade-offs between equity and efficienc
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/effects-income-tax-changes-economic-growth

 

Good you agree tax cuts cost the US treasury revenues and create deficits. Way to go

The real costs of Trump's tax cuts

Passed at the end of 2017, the TCJA continues to provide large tax cuts to the country’s wealthiest individuals. Even foreign investors reap considerably more benefit from this law than middle- and low-income wage earners in the United States.

As a result, the TCJA has made the American tax system less effective at securing national revenues from the people most able to provide them. According to a new analysis from the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, the national treasury will lose $324.2 billion in revenues with tax breaks

https://www.hibudget.org/blog/real-...ording to a new analysis,as shown in Figure 2.

 

Nothing about measuring the tax revenues like economists do, you know percent of GDP that adjust for inflation and population growth?

 

Capital gains? LMAOROG

OK how did capital gains effect Ronnie's economy? You know when he took it from 20% to ordinary income?


Yeah NOTHING effects capital gains revenues right? Like booming economies? Or knowing a Democrat is elected and might increase rates? Or a Repugnant is elected and assumes rates will be lowered?

 

They do both, have since Dubya
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46233.pdf

 

LMAOROG

First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.

But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ed-more-revenue-and-tens-of-millions-of-jobs/

NO PAYWALL LINK
https://archive.ph/LmWYm


In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011–2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt, comprising $2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest and debt service costs
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21670


The non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts estimated in May 2010 that extending some or all of the tax cuts would have the following impact under these scenarios:

• Making the tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, regardless of income, would increase the national debt $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
• Limiting the extension to individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples earning less than $250,000 would increase the debt about $2.2 trillion in the next decade.
• Extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers for only two years would cost $561 billion over the next 10 years

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...fects-of-extending-the-2001-and-2003-tax-cuts

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillion.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170823204740/https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf

ONE THING, IF TAX CUTS BRING IN MORE REVENUES AND CREATED ECONOMIC GROWTH, WHY IS THERE ALWAYS A COST REQUIRED BY CONGRESS? WHY DON'T THE DEMOCRATS GO ALONG, IF TRUE? What rate is here Laffer's curve kicks in? 15%,, 20%, 40%, 70%? Come on be honest now


Here’s why this economist says the ‘perfect’ tax rate for the rich is 75%
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/thi...rfect-tax-rate-for-the-rich-is-75percent.html

 

No it is NOT the best way to compare federal revues across time and it tells you nothing of deficits and surplus. As I said the goal is to grow the economy faster than we grow government so the government takes LESS a percentage of the COUNTRY'S GDP out of the market. Do you not understand that? The government does not own a particular share GDP. To compare revenues compare REVENUE. How much did it increase or decrease year to year and over time.

Total conjecture. Supposition. Postulation. CBO especially does not consider the dynamic effect of tax policies but relies on the static. The more accurate estimate the dynamic would show the depth and length are mitigated by the effects of those tax rate cuts. Tax revenues DOUBLED as we came out of the RECESSION of those four years. THAT is the historical record. And we saw the same with the Bush43 tax rate cuts which helped to mitigate the length and depth of the 2001 recession. What happened in the 2009/9 recession. Tax increase, regulatory increases, employment cost increases and a huge stimulus and we had one of the worst recessions and recovery in modern history. And Biden is repeating it now.

You need to learn the difference between conjecture, supposition and postulation and FACTUAL DATA.

And posting CBO projections in particular

CBO Budget Projections: After Two Years No Better Than Throwing Darts

The latest Senate Republican healthcare reform plan, like its House predecessor, appears now to have failed. It did so for many reasons, some good and some not so good. Among the not-so-good reasons the proposal failed were the projections of the Congressional Budget Office. As I show here, CBO projections more than two years into the future in the domain it perhaps studies most -- federal deficits -- are little better than random guesses.

Look at the chart below. It shows the deterioration of CBO predictive accuracy when it comes to the federal budget deficit. The circular markers show how accurate these predictions have been since 2009 in forecasting how large the federal budget deficit would be. As one can see, although CBO estimates are very good for the same year in which they are made, accuracy deteriorates rapidly. By year 3, CBO projections have actually been no better than luck....

...The end does not justify the means. Cheating or incompetence in financial analysis should not be ignored or condoned just because it favors one's intuition about the "correct result" in a particular case. That kind of reasoning will, I promise, sooner or later, bite one in the behind, perhaps on something even more important than healthcare. I, at least, will celebrate any supporter of the ideas of the Affordable Care Act or yet more liberal plans who is enough of a sportsperson to acknowledge plain referee errors in one's favor. We all need better and more objective work from the CBO.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...o-better-than-throwing-darts/?sh=2e00c68d67a2

It's not an "IF" as I have shown you with the historical DATA. Why don't Democrats go along??????????? You really have to ask? It's not about tax revenue or deficits or proper fiscal policy for Dems it's about buying votes with tax payer dollars and playing the envy and jealousy games.

 

IF it's not the best way to measure federal tax revenues, why do economists use it?

A tax-to-GDP ratio is a gauge of a nation's tax revenue relative to the size of its economy as measured by gross domestic product (GDP). The ratio provides a useful look at a country's tax revenue because it reveals potential taxation relative to the economy. It also enables a view of the overall direction of a nation's tax policy, as well as international comparisons between the tax revenues of different countries.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-to-gdp-ratio.asp


Economists specializing in public finance have long enumerated four objectives of tax policy: simplicity, efficiency, fairness, and revenue sufficiency.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Taxation.html

 

YES, CBO HAS DONE DYNAMIC SCORING SINCE DUBYA!!!

LMAOROG, Ronnie gutted taxes in 1981, the US economy did the opposite of what was predicted, going into the deepest recession since the first GOP great depression

Ronnie doubled receipts huh? How much was inflation? How much were his tax increases and especially the 1986 "saving SS'' bill that has been used to hide the ecost of tax cuts ever since? Other tax increases? Gawd you will NEVER be honest, just a bunch of AEI, Heritage, CATO, etc talking points huh?

 

WOW CBO can't predict how badly GOP policy decisions effect the US economy? Horrible. Why?

The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) estimates do account for faster economic growth and other behavioral changes resulting from the recently-passed tax cuts, and its projections have been relatively similar to other estimates. Moreover, CBO's current projections – both of the economic impact of tax reform and the return of trillion-dollar deficits – are in line with other estimates from outside groups.


CBO Has a Strong Record of Accuracy

In its recent baseline, CBO published revenue projections going back to 1981. Its average forecasting error for revenue as a share of GDP is only 0.2 percent for year one, 0.9 percent for year two, and 1.5 to 2 percent for subsequent years. The (unweighted) absolute value of its error averages only 2 percent in year one and 3.6 to 5.2 percent in subsequent years. These forecasting errors are quite small, statistically speaking. And on average, CBO has estimated modestly more revenue than what has materialized, not less.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbo-always-wrong-because-it-doesnt-understand-growth


LIKE I SAID GOLD STANDARD

The Attacks On The Congressional Budget Office Are Wrong
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/attacks-congressional-budget-office-are-wrong

 

Question; Which tax cuts pay for themselves?

Answer; “Short term”, there’s only one tax cut that generates additional revenues, and is mainly a windfall for the rich; Lowering the Capital gains tax rate.

 

And their predictions are no better than throwing darts as I showed you.

 

Give me a break. Biden doesn’t care about social security or the elderly. It’s going broke and he gave money to young people with a long life of work to pay off their debts. The people who really need it came in second. And the idea that he was willing to spend so much on students while social security is going broke says where he stands. He stands with socialism and paid for voting. He doesn’t stand for the elderly at all

 

I DON'T CARE ABOUT AS AS SHARE OF GDP. They were totally wrong about all the tax rate cuts that were instituted and have as you engage in cherry picking inconsequential data where they did manage to get close. And you know they get to revise their numbers later..........

From the Urban Institute study


Errors IN Budget Forecasting


Conclusion

Because budget projections tend to be highly inaccurate and are unlikely to get better soon, policymakers, policy analysts, and the media must live with tremendous uncertainty. That uncertainty should be recognized more explicitly than it has been in the past, and the dialogue regarding policy decisions should pay more attention to the risks of being wrong. Almost everyone involved in the policymaking process recognizes this intellectually, but their time is scarce and it is difficult enough to analyze policies under the assumption that the future is certain. Nevertheless, relatively simple changes in language, more caution in discussing and legalizing precise quantitative targets, and a more detailed discussion of the risks associated with bad forecasts have the potential to significantly improve the policy dialogue.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/61106/310086-Errors-in-Budget-Forecasting.PDF

You can post what all the projections and postulation you want, the ONLY thing that matters is what were the results and you haven't refuted let alone address.

 

Yes, the DP sucks, but TG at least one of our corrupt political parties has enough sense to throw a little more cash at its voter base.

 

What effects capital gains? Realizations. What effects realizations, tax rates. And the 2001 were both income AND capgains.

And do you mean what happened after the Democrat Congress forced a capgains rate increase, revenues dropped in half

Optimal Capital Gains Tax Policy: Lessons from the 1970S, 1980S, and 1990S
A JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE STUDY

Joint Economic Committee United States Congress

....The point that the revenue-maximum rate is highly inefficient cannot be stressed to o much. When higher tax rates shrink the tax base so much that they raise little or n o additional revenue, this means that they are eliminating a large volume of mutuall y advantageous trades. Production is reduced and resources are used less efficiently than would otherwise be the case. Reflection on the potential gains that continue to be locked up by the current capital gains rate structure illustrates this point. Many asset owners are continuing to hold assets that they would like to sell to others who value them more. No doubt, the potential new owners believe they can employ the assets more effectively; this is why they are willing to pay more than the current owners value of the assets. But these mutually advantageous exchanges and the accompanying movements to more efficient uses do not occur because of the tax implications.

Clearly, the optimal tax rate is always lower than the revenue-maximizing tax rate because of the excess burden of taxation. When tax rates are close to their revenue-maximizing level, the tax rate can be reduced with relatively little reduction in revenue, but with a large reduction in the welfare cost of taxation. Estimates from several studies on the marginal excess burden of taxation suggest that it is around 25 percent of the revenue raised. Cutting the capital gains tax 9 rate from 28 percent to 20 percent would provid e a substantial efficiency gain without any significant loss in revenue. From an efficiency standpoint, however, even the 20 percent rat e is too high because the size of the excess burden of taxation is very high in the range near the maximum-revenue tax rate. These findings suggest th at the optimal capital gain rate is probably 15 percent or less.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_...y--lessons-from-the-1970s-1980s-and-1990s.pdf

 

And is only a measure against the value of the economy it doesn't not tell HOW MUCH revenue. Again the goal is to have as LOW a percent of GDP as possible to fund the government, why do you assert that the government taking a higher share of the GDP is a good thing?

 

DP/TG?

 

None passed the past 60 years, yes sometimes lowering capital gains brings profits sooner to be taxed, but no capital gain tax cut bring in more revenues anymore than Ronnie taking capital gains from 20% to 50% did

 

Opinion. I want good, well functioning Gov't. It cost money for that

 

LMAOROG

Conventional wisdom among a number of tax scorekeepers holds that the revenue-maximizing capital gains tax rate is 30 percent, or 50 percent higher than today. This means that setting a rate too far below 30 percent leaves tax revenues on the table, while taxing too far above 30 percent could reduce total collected revenue.

..This work challenges the assumption that substantially raising capital gains tax rates would have a negative effect on tax revenues. Current elasticity assumptions miss the mark and, likewise, raising capital gains tax rates would result in significant additional tax revenues.
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/rethinking-how-we-score-capital-gains-tax-reform/

Q: Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?

A: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.

FULL ANSWER

This economic theory is what George H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics.” We called it “supply-side spin” when we wrote about Republican presidential contender John McCain’s claim that President George W. Bush’s tax cuts had increased federal revenues. We found that a slew of government economists – from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers – all disagreed with that theory, saying that tax cuts may spur economic growth but they lead to revenues that are lower than they would have been if the cuts hadn’t been enacted.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-impact-of-tax-cuts/

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a report on capital gains taxes and federal revenues, found the relationship between rates and revenues "can be hard to detect and easy to confuse with other phenomena" because of other influences on realizations.

"For example," the CBO said, "a number of observers have attributed the rapid rise in realizations in the late 1990s to the 1997 cut in capital gains tax rates. But the 45 percent increase in realizations in 1996 -- before the cut -- exceeded the 40 percent and 25 percent increases in 1997 and 1998 that followed it. Careful studies have failed to agree on how responsive gains realizations are to changes in tax rates, with estimates of that responsiveness varying widely."


...The CBO's 2002 study found that a cut in the capital gains rate will tend to spike tax revenues, but only temporarily. Rate cuts "may not be enough to produce additional receipts over a long period," it concluded, but "may do so over a few years."

Similarly, the Congressional Research Service found in 2010 that "changes in the tax rate or anticipated changes have coincided with large increases in capital gains realizations, but realizations quickly fell back to previous levels.


"While the effect of changes in the capital gains tax rate continue to be debated and researched," the CRS concluded, "the bulk of the evidence suggests that reducing the capital gains tax rate reduces tax revenues."
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...m-renacci-says-raising-capital-gains-tax-has/

 

Your REPUGNANT led committee had a minority report too you know?

Dems start on page 49

...As the last section discussed, Republican proposals in both the tax and spending areas pose significant dangers to the American economy and to American society. Overstating the impacts of tax cuts on growth, as the Republicans have consistently done, allows them to give tax breaks to high-income Americans without facing the impacts these cuts will have on the budget as a whole
https://www.congress.gov/104/crpt/srpt200/CRPT-104srpt200.pdf

 

Pretty sure these Republicans did that for me

Economists Are Skeptical That Growth Will Finance Tax Cuts
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/economists-are-skeptical-growth-will-finance-tax-cuts



Greg Mankiw, George W. Bush's CEA chair:

Used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers and adviser to John McCain’s 2008 campaign, quoted in a New York Times article: “It is not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don’t lose as much.”


Andrew Samwick was chief economist to the Bush CEA, and is now at Dartmouth. He wrote the following New Year’s message to his former colleagues in the Bush White House: “You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues … You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.”

Alan Viard, a former Bush White House Economist, said in a Washington Post article: “Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.”


Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said in that same Washington Post article, “As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.”

Ed Lazear, chief economic adviser to President Bush and a member of Bush’s Tax reform advisory panel, was quoted in the Washington Times: “We do not say the tax cuts pay for themselves.”

Henry Paulson, Bush’s Treasury Secretary, at his confirmation hearing in the Senate: “As a general rule, I don’t believe that tax cuts pay for themselves.”


It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.

— David Stockman

https://www.cnbc.com/2010/08/22/haines-tax-cuts-do-contribute-to-nations-deficit.html



...I can't think of any serious economist who thinks that happened. The 2003 Economic Report of the President said that "[a]lthough the economy grows in response to tax reductions... it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity." Bush's own Treasury Department has disavowed the view that Bush's tax cuts have raised revenue.Rob Portman and Ed Lazear, while serving in the Bush administration (as head of the OMB and the Council of Economic Advisers, respectively), said that the tax cuts had reduced federal revenue.
https://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2007/10/ponnuru-tax-cut.html

 

Lots of stuff (mostly years-old articles, apparently) randomly thrown in here for reasons unknown.

Perhaps to obscure the basic facts at play here. The coming cuts to the Medicare physician fee schedule have nothing do with the ACA wringing overpayments to Medicare Advantage insurers out of the system in the prior decade. Which it did successfully. Nor do they have anything to do with the productivity adjustments to institutional providers (not physicians) that have saved hundreds of billions of dollars over the past decade. Nor do they have anything to do with the sustainable growth rate formula, which showed up in one of your outdated articles. That formula--a GOP gimmick introduced in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to make it look like they were saving money by cutting Medicare payments to physicians, but actually overridden by Congress on an annual basis--was legislated out of existence in 2015. The looming cuts are the product of an expiring pay bump and the GOP's sequestration cuts.

But your overarching point seems to be that Medicare premiums are artificially low and ought to be higher. Hard to dispute that!

 

Well because it is not one big thing, the fact remains doctors have been dropping Medicare and Medicaid patients since Obamacare and other changes and this move by the Biden administration will only exacerbate it.

And the Dems have had full power to rescind ANY previous legislation. This is about sequestration a decade ago.