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

And keep up being the leader in new drug development continuing to research, develop, refine, test, retest, retest, seek approval, retest, get approval, build production, get production approved, produce package transport market and on and on??

How much can they accept an upon what do you base that?

 

Except they did HUGELY, the figures speak for themselves. There is no "would" they did.

You will cut a dollar and get a dollar fifteen back while you increase tax rates and it falls for a dollar and nine cents to a dollar and seven cents.

Again those pesky ACTUAL numbers not postulations and conjecture and suppositions. Actual numbers.

FIFTEEN PERCENT REVENUE INCREASE.........................HISTORICAL HIGH. With SOLID GDP growth, 52 months of full employment and a rapidly falling deficit to a measly $161B.............what is it exactly you didn't like about all that.

YES it hit the recession peak of $400B and then RAPIDLY fell to a paltry $161B heading to that surplus. Then the Dems took back the Congress.

ROFLMAO now isn't that rich the Dems tool back the Congress January of 2007 and then the White House in 2009 and you blame Bush not only for those years but for the next NINE years. How absurd.

Revenues INCREASED.

 

The ACA did eliminate the disparity between traditional Medicare and the privatized Medicare Advantage program (saving the taxpayers billions of dollars), whereby private insurers were overpaid to provide Medicare benefits. That happened a few years ago, didn't have anything to do with Medicare physician reimbursements, and doesn't have anything to do with 2023.

Conspicuously absent here are physician reimbursements, since they aren't impacted by the ACA's productivity adjustment. The cuts next year to physician reimbursements are, once again, primarily due to sequestration, the GOP's blunt force budget cuts.

To a variety of institutional providers. Certainly the ACA was designed to save hundreds of billions in Medicare spending in its first decade. It was intended to save ~$500 billion, and ended up saving ~$900 billion in reality. Good news for taxpayers and the sustainability of the program! But completely unrelated to the sequestration cuts impacting physicians next year.

Just to be clear, you're arguing that higher premiums (for Medicare, or I suppose for any payer) are good because higher prices for drugs or health services are inherently good? Again, hard to reconcile your complaining about Medicare premiums with this attitude.

 

There were other historical highs when George Bush was POTUS, and Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House, for example;

Bush’s 69.2% homeownership rate VERSUS today’s 65.5%.

Bravo!

 

We believe everyone, everywhere has the right to a life free from slavery. But right now, millions of children and adults are trapped in slavery in every single country in the world. Including yours.

Modern slavery is the severe exploitation of other people for personal or commercial gain. Modern slavery is all around us, but often just out of sight. People can become entrapped making our clothes, serving our food, picking our crops, working in factories, or working in houses as cooks, cleaners or nannies.

From the outside, it can look like a normal job. But people are being controlled – they can face violence or threats, be forced into inescapable debt, source

 

You stick with your BS, now show us how much revenues would've been with the tax cuts for the rich?

CBO Confirms GOP Tax Law Contributes to Darkening Fiscal Future

Any Economic Growth from the GOP Tax Law is Slight and Short-Lived

GOP Tax Law Will Not Pay for Itself

CBO projected that the tax cut will add $1.9 trillion to deficits over 10 years, even after accounting for any growth effects. We are already seeing this play out. The deficit grew 17 percent last year and is projected to grow another 15 percent this year even as the economy grew faster. The idea that tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would allow us to grow our way out of debt – one of Republicans’ favorite myths – has proven incorrect once again.
https://budget.house.gov/publicatio...p-tax-law-contributes-darkening-fiscal-future

The real costs of Trump’s tax cuts
https://www.hibudget.org/blog/real-cost-trump-tax-cuts

Trump’s Wasteful Tax Cuts Lead To Continued Trillion Dollar Deficits In Expanding Economy

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christ...eficits-in-expanding-economy/?sh=d4ce81566c43


“Actual tax cuts signed into law by the President have cost $2.3 trillion by our estimates, about half as much as we estimated his campaign agenda would cost,” the group said, noting the final version of the 2017 tax revamp had higher top personal rates and corporate tax rates than promised and only reduced instead of eliminated the alternative minimum and estate taxes.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...deficits-so-far-budget-group-says-11599669921

 

UNTIL the ponzi scheme crashed

AUGUST 25, 2015

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The new Republican-appointed director of the Congressional Budget Office delivered some bad news on Tuesday to the party’s “Reaganomics” devotees: Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves through turbocharged economic growth.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...appointed-official-says-idUSKCN0QU2FB20150825




In this paper, we show:

• There is no theoretical basis to suggest tax cuts could be self-financing. To do that, the economy would need to grow by $5 to $6 for every $1 of tax cuts.
• There is broad consensus among economic models that future tax cuts won’t pay for themselves. Some models find tax cuts would be partially self-financing, while others find the economic feedback would actually increase the deficit effect of tax cuts.
• Past tax cuts in 1981 and the early 2000s have led to widening budget deficits and lower revenue, not the reverse as some claim.

Instead of relying on magic bullets and fairy dust to pay for tax cuts, policymakers should ensure rate reductions do not add to the debt.

https://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office (2003-2005, under President Bush)

“I'm a very conservative economist. I would love it if tax cuts paid for themselves, but I'm also someone who looks at the numbers. And there's just no evidence that the tax cuts actually pay for themselves…It's just unlikely that you can move an economy that is approaching $20 trillion in size so much, so fast with a tax cut, that it will turn around and generate even more revenue.” [5/9/2017]

David Stockman, former OMB director (1981-1985, under President Reagan) and former GOP Representative from Michigan (1977-1981)

“It's the same story they told back in 1980s when I was there and I never believed it… [tax cuts would produce] some additional economic growth…[but] most of the revenue loss has to be paid for with spending cuts. You have to earn it. You can't, you know, wave a magic wand.” [5/15/2017]


Virtually everything Republicans say about taxes today is a lie. Tax cuts and tax rate reductions will not pay for themselves; they never have. Republicans don’t even believe they will, they are just excuses to slash spending for the poor when revenues collapse and deficits rise. There is no evidence that tax reform raises growth, although it may improve fairness and tax administration. And the Republican idea that tax increases always crash the economy is belied by the experiences after Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and Barack Obama did the same in 2013. The economy grew nicely and the stock market boomed in both cases.

Having helped open the Pandora’s Box of Republican tax cutting, I have tried for many years to close it again. I am trying again now.
Bruce Bartlett
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...eory-hogwash-bruce-bartlett-column/704464001/

 

Google Trading Economics, XYZ Nation Corporate Profits, example; Canada’s quarterly corporate profits……

Ending Jan 2020……..$60 billion

Jan 2021……..$120 billion

Jan 2022……..$140 billion

I also googled the last time the Canucks have lowered their corporate tax rates, both federal and states; over 10 years ago

Note; In the U.S., and since Jan 2020, Corporate profits and Uncle Sam’s corporate tax revenues have also substantially increased, and according to the below average intelligent people; “Mainly due to Trump’s corporate tax rate cut”

 

CBO is HORRIBLE with future predictions and all you offer is conjecture and suppposition where I provide the ACTUALLY NUMBERS, what ACTUALLY happened. Revenus SOARED after the tax rate cuts hitting DOUBLE DIGIT RECORD INCREASES.

 

OH geez not Stockman, the man who was FIRED becaues he got it so wrong?????

Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261:Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the ReaganEconomic Record


Total Revenue Growth
. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion.From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.
Income Tax Receipts
. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grewonly slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after thetop income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986.According to the latest (August 1996) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenueswill have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the top income tax rate from 28percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6 percent in 1993.
[19]
On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised $380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been predicted.
[20]
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/supply-side-tax-cuts-truth-about-reagan-economic-record

 

The 8% cut I cited has to do with 2023. That on top of

"Patients can lose doctors for a variety of reasons, including a physician’s retirement or when either patient or doctor moves away. But economic forces are also at play. Many primary care doctors have long argued that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors and people with disabilities, doesn’t reimburse them adequately and requires too much paperwork to get paid.
https://khn.org/news/concierge-medi...e-doctor-when-physician-opts-out-of-medicare/

"Medicare reimbursement rates also create problems for the health care system. The Congressional Budget Office found that for similar services, prices ranged from 11 to 139 percent greater for private insurance as compared to the fees for traditional Medicare. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has the legal authority to set prices for itself, which it does through a fee schedule based on criteria that were implemented in 1989.

Providers must charge private payers higher prices in order to be able to cover costs. Medicare for All does not seek to alleviate the market distortion but, rather, eliminates the market itself. While prices can be forced lower by bureaucratic diktat, such a move does not repeal the laws of economics, which tell us that all resources are limited and have alternative uses. Without prices to provide signals about the relative value of alternative uses of resources, those resources will be misallocated and critical health care needs will go unmet. "
https://www.heritage.org/insider/su...ealth-care-how-medicare-all-threatens-patient

AHHH Democrats control not just the Congress but the White House too. They also controlled them in 2011 when the suquestrations were passed. Do you think the government has unlimited funds?

More Physicians No Longer Seeing Medicare Patients

The federal health program that serves seniors and individuals with disabilities is losing doctors who’ll see its patients.

• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says the number of doctors who’ll take Medicare patients is falling.

• A combination of constant battles over reimbursement rates, red tape and payment below what services actually cost has simmered for a long time.

• • Medicare now faces the same tell-tale signs of trouble as Medicaid, the low-income health program. One-third of primary care doctors won’t take new patients on Medicaid.
  • While the number of Medicare decliners remains relatively small, the trend is growing. If it continues, that could make it more difficult for seniors to get timely treatment.

More doctors are reducing their dependence on Medicare. They’ve done this in several ways. At the same time, the Medicare population is growing because of the retirement of baby boomers now and over the next couple of decades.

The number of doctors not accepting Medicare has more than doubled since 2009. Some 9,539 doctors dropped out of Medicare practice in 2012. That’s risen dramatically from 3,700 in 2009.

• Now, 81 percent of family doctors will take on seniors on Medicare, a survey by the American Academy of Family Physicians found. That figure was 83 percent in 2010.
• Some 2.9 percent of family doctors have dropped out of Medicare altogether. In 2010, 2.8 percent reported taking this dramatic step.
• More doctors are practicing on a “concierge” or cash basis. Four percent of family practitioners now work on that model. That’s higher than the 3 percent in 2010.

While 685,000 doctors take Medicare patients, their frustration factor has grown.

• Perennial struggles to stop automatic cuts in Medicare provider payments have grown old. The so-called “sustainable growth rate” always gets averted at the last minute, with its looming 25 percent cuts.

• In some locations around the country, seniors increasingly run into problems finding doctors who’ll take Medicare. That could spell delays in needed treatment.

• Medicare pays for services at rates significantly below their costs. Medicaid has long paid less than Medicare, making it even less attractive. If doctors accept patients in these programs, there’s no negotiation over rates. The government dictates prices on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

• • Some private-pay doctors find that eliminating the layers of paperwork allows them to charge reasonable rates for their services. Many cite this model as promoting price transparency and more apt to curb healthcare costs.
    

https://www.hlc.org/news/more-physicians-no-longer-seeing-medicare-patients/

And it is not just Medicare and Medicaid

Doctors, Hospitals Say 'No' to Obamacare Plans

In most states, doctors can choose not to participate in the networks offered in the marketplaces, also known as exchanges, created by the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's signature health care law. Then again, they can choose not to participate in any other type of health insurance plan as well. Some doctors opt out of Medicaid, the government's health program for low-income Americans, and others opt out of Medicare, the government's program for adults 65 and older. Others limit the percentage of patients they'll accept who are covered by these plans.
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...itals-wont-accept-obamacare-marketplace-plans

I argue that the market is the better judge of prices than manadated government price fixing. I argued that this 8% cut will be passed on to those with private insurance. I noted that the cut this year that is being bragged about by the administration is only half of the increase we had two years ago.

What exactly are you trying to point out?

 

LMAOROG

No serious economst thinks ANY tax cut over the past 60 years has provided more revenues than if the tax rates are left alone

THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT?

IF cutting taxes brought in more revenues, why must they be scored and offset for costs? GET HONEST, ONE TIME


“Not only will this tax plan pay for itself but it will pay down debt,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin famously boasted in September. But his own department’s analysts now peg the 10-year cost at $2.3 trillion given the administration’s assumption that tax breaks for individuals and large estates will be extended past 2025.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/tax-cuts-trump-gop-analysis-430781

I GUESS THE MARKETS DIDN'T GET YOUR MEMO IN THE UK THOUGH

''Truss, in Reversal, Drops Plan to Cut U.K. Tax Rate on High Earners
The announcement was a major capitulation by the government after the tax cuts it announced roiled financial markets and drew widespread criticism.

...Ms. Truss’s economic proposals, announced 10 days ago, had already roiled financial markets, sending the British pound into a tailspin and leading the Bank of England to intervene to prop up some British government bonds.''

 

GOP Tax Cuts Are Driven by Politics, Not Economics

TRUMP TAX CUTS

Then there is the impact on the deficit. The proposals would result in an estimated $1.5 trillion more in national debt over the next 10 years. In a survey of 38 experts by the University of Chicago’s Initiative on Global Markets, 37 said that the tax bill would cause the debt to grow “substantially” faster than the economy, and the 38th admitted later that he had initially misread the question and concurred with the others. This reminds me of the old adage that we have two political parties, the tax-and-spend party (Democrats) and the borrow-and-spend party (Republicans)—in this case the spending coming in the form of tax cuts.

https://www.cookpolitical.com/analy...op-tax-cuts-are-driven-politics-not-economics


Feb 5, 2019 — CBO projected that the tax cut will add $1.9 trillion to deficits over 10 years, even after accounting for any growth effects.


The Economists Who Support the Republicans Are as Dishonest as Their Patrons
https://verdict.justia.com/2017/11/28/economists-support-republicans-dishonest-patrons

 

It's not just CBO, but you keep dancing around FACTS like there is a left and right to tax cuts on Laffer's curve


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

 

LMAOROG


The TCJA gave corporations an even bigger tax cut than originally projected

Since the TCJA was enacted, corporate tax revenue has been down from its projected level by about one-third, even as pretax corporate profits have continued to rise toward historic highs. (see Figure 1) The main reason for the drop in corporate tax revenue is obvious: The TCJA slashed the corporate rate by 40 percent, from 35 percent to 21 percent. But the falloff in corporate revenue has been even sharper than expected.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tcja-2-years-later-corporations-not-workers-big-winners/

Trump’s Corporate Tax Cut Is Not Trickling Down
Business investment is slowing, despite lofty promises, and worker bonuses were a mirage
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-corporate-tax-cut-not-trickling/


Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase “charlatans and cranks” in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. 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.”


The Booming Economy, Not The 2017 Tax Act, Is Fueling Corporate Tax Receipts
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tax...t-2017-tax-act-fueling-corporate-tax-receipts

 

AGAIN conjecture, speculations, postulations...................I gave you what ACTUALLY happened. DOUBLE DIGIT HISTORICAL REVENUE INCREASES.....................why do you keep ignoring the actual results and history?

And Lazear is correct we don't say tax cuts "pay for themselves" we say tax cuts spur economic activity which expands the economy and business and increases employment which increases wages and tax revenues go UP not DOWN and in fact go UP dramatically.

 

I already told you CBO is HISTORICALLY innaccurate in it's projects as the revenue INCREASES after the Gingrich/Kasich and Bush43 showed. They predicted the Clinton tax rate increases would increase revenues, in fact the rate of revenue increase SLOWED.

Nothing you can post of these projections that were made or baseless excuses after refute the HISTORICAL FACT.

 

See above, the phony "tax cuts pay for themselves" it's the thriving economy and more people paying taxes that pay them as history shows. And I have no say in the economy and fiscal policy of England and the mess in which they have gotten themselves and do not keep up with it.

 

Sure, lets measure it like economists do okie dokie, you know to take in effects of inflation and population growth


Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
Individual income taxes
1981 9.1% Carters last f/y budget
1982 9.0 Ronnie's first tax cut top rate from 70% to 50%
1983 8.2
1984 7.6
1985 7.8
1986 7.7
1987 8.2
1988 7.8
1989 8.0

After the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 revenues fell by 6% in real terms. This promoted a tax increase that passed the House in late 1981 and the Senate in mid-1982 called the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. This act was an agreement between Reagan and the Congress that raised revenues for the following years. Following that increase, there were 3 other tax increases from 1983-1987 for other various reasons. In total, the US lost over $200 billion in 2012 chained dollars due to the original tax cut in the first four years and around $1 billion for the second tax cut. The four tax increases from 1982-1987 added a total of $137 billion in revenue which adds up to roughly $64 billion in net revenue lost because of the cuts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_tax_cuts

1990 7.9%
1991 7.7
1992 7.4
1993 7.5
1994 7.6 Clinton 3 new brackets, taking top rate to 39.6%
1995 7.8
1996 8.3
1997 8.7
1998 9.3
1999 9.3
2000 9.9
2001 9.4 Clinton final f/y budget
2002 7.9 Bush tax cuts for the rich take effect
2003 7.0 Bush second tax cut takes effect
2004 6.7
2005 7.2 Dubya homeownership society ponzi scheme inflates
2006 7.7
2007 8.1
2008 7.8 OOPS Dubya's ponzi scheme collapses
2009 6.3 Final F/Y Dubya
2010 6.1
2011 7.1 Obama signs tax increases
2012 7.1
2013 7.9
2014 8.0
2016 8.5
2016 8.3
2017 8.2 Trump guts tax revenues
2018 8.3
2019 8.1
2020 7.7
2021 9.1


https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/source-revenue-share-gdp

 

Static numbers without adjusting for inflation or population growth? lol

NO SERIOUS ECONOMISTS BELIEVES YOUR POLITICAL BS THAT GUTTING TAXES CREATES MORE REVENUES. NONE

 

CBO is the gold standard actually

BUT


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.

How Much Trump's Tax Cuts Cost the Government
Tax cuts under the Trump Administration increased the deficit and debt

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) analyzed the tax cuts alone, independent of the FY 2018 budget. This analysis found that the TCJA would increase the deficit by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. In creating this prediction, the committee expected the economy to grow 0.8% per year.



The (ANTI) Tax Foundation came up with a second conclusion, predicting that the TCJA would add almost $448 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. It looked at the effect of the tax cuts themselves and the TCJA's elimination of the Affordable Care Act mandate.

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/cost-of-trump-tax-cuts-4586645

 

Not for predictions, it is good for historical data but on predictions they are historicall inaccurate because they rely on more static rather than dynamic models.

And again you are posting postulations and speculations and conjecture I am posting FACTS, the historical record.

 

I could care less "as a share of GDP" the goal should be to grow the economy FASTER than we grow the government so the government takes a smaller and smaller share of GDP why do you believe increase revenues as a percent of GDP, government taking more and more money out of the economy, is a good thing?

Here I'll correct it for you with the ACTUAL dollar changes

Year - Tax Revenue - Increase
1990 1,032.0 4.1% <- Democrats tax increase agreed to by Bush for spending cuts the Dems never passed
1991 1,055.0 2.2%
1992 1,091.2 3.4%
1993 1,154.3 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase signed AUGUST 1993 however
"Taxpayers who owed additional 1993 taxes due to the
OBRA93 tax rate increases were given the option of
deferring payment of two-thirds of the tax that was in
excess of the tax that would have been owed at the 31
percent rate. Half of the deferral taxes were to be paid in
1995 and the remaining half in 1996 [2].
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/93inintrts.pdf
1994 1,258.6 9.0%
1995 1,351.8 7.4% <- Even with the differed tax revenues revenue growth slow
1996 1,453.1 7.5%
1997 1,579.2 8.7% -> Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts
1998 1,721.7 9.0%
1999 1,827.5 6.1%
2000 2,025.2 10.8%
2001 1,991.1 -2%
2002 1,853.1 -7%
2003 1,782.3 -4% Bush tax rate cuts begin implimentation
2004 1,880.1 5% Bush tax rate cuts fully implimented
2005 2,153.6 15%
2006 2,406.9 12%
2007 2,568.0 7% <- Dems take back the Congress
2008 2,524.0 -2%
2009 2,105.0 -17%
2010 2,162.7 3%
2011 2,303.5 7% <- Republicans take back the house
2012 2,445.0 6%
2013 2,775.1 13%
2014 3,021.5 9% Obama Capital Gains tax increase and surcharge
2015 3,249.9 8%
OMB Historical Tables

 

Because it is comparing year to year and inflation was minimal. LOTS OF SERIOUS ECONOMIST KNOW THAT TAX RATES EFFECT ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND THE NUMBER OF TAXPAYERS AND INCREASE REVENUES AS THE HISTORICAL NUMBERS SHOW.

 

Here’s a true, however, PARTISAN claim;

Capital letters; “TRUMP HAD RECORD REVENUES”

Small letters; “in nominal dollars”

Indisputable fact; Since 1960, fiscally and in nominal dollars, we had 48 audited record high tax receipts.

Source; U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue By Year……thebalancemoney.com

NOTE; There is only one reason why I’m still a PF member; To ridicule Mr./Mrs. Partisan.