I don't have inflation-corrected numbers, but those are real dollars. (What do you mean by nominal dollars?) I don't know about since 2000, but I can promise that there has been a significant inflation-adjusted increase in tax revenues since 2003. (I can promise that prices haven't inflated 28% since 2003.) After all, aren't we debating the merits of the tax cuts? Here it is again, from a better source, through 3/06. US Treasury Department's Chart
Meaning that the chart you showed, the dollars are not adjusted for inflation. Nominal dollars refer to the numeric value of the amount in question, where as real dollars refers to the actual value. The value of the dollar 5 years ago was more than the dollar today but the chart doesn't take that into account. But here's the actual inflation adjusted value..
First off, you can't start looking from 2003. Bush first cut taxes in 2001. From your own chart, tax revenues in 2000 were approximately $2.03 trillion, and $2.15 trillion in 2005 - that's a nominal-dollar increase of 6% in 5 years. Over that time, inflation was far more than 6% - at just a 2% annual inflation rate, you had 10% inflation (for simplicity). So in real, inflation-adjusted dollars, tax revenues were lower in 2005 than in 2000. Worse yet, the economy grew by 3-4% year (GDP - so in real terms, not nominal). So even at the low end of 3%, the economy grew about 16% over 5 years. So the net result? Adjusting for inflation, the economy grew by about 16% from 2000 to 2005. Tax revenues dropped about 4%.
Well of course. The economy (as represented) by income is being taxed at a lower rate. It is a mathematical fact that tax revenues will increase at a lower rate relative to the economic growth under a lower tax rate. (Unless you somehow get income and GDP to grow independently. If you figure that one out, let me know. You will get a Nobel Prize.) But it is also irrelevant.
You were responding to this statement of mine: You do realize the economy is much larger than it was in 2000, yet net tax revenues are still lower than they were in 2000? If you agreed with it and thought it irrelevent, why did you try to counter it? And it is *very* relevant if you are trying to argue that tax cuts spur an economy and pay for themselves (supply-side economics). The economy has grown 16% and government has had to grow correspondingly, and yet tax revenues are nowhere close to paying for themselves.
Your definition of "net tax revenues" is twisted to make your point, makes a supposed quality judgment a mathematical fact, and therefore makes your argument irrelevant. By your definition of "net tax revenues", "net tax revenues" track nearly exactly parallel with tax rate. (They would track exactly parallel under a flat tax.) Growth of the government is not completely dependent on the growth of the economy. Some parts of government, Transportation infrastructure, for example, must grow with the economy. Other parts, Welfare, for example, grow inversely with the economy. Still others, defense, for example, have growth that is completely independent of the economy. A relevant comparison is the growth in government expenditures as compared to growth in tax revenues. While spending has increased at an alarming rate, government revenues have increased at a higher rate since the tax cuts. Hence, the reduction in the still enormous deficit.
You're missing the point. Revenues haven't increased by very much at all. In monetary terms, they have as per your chart. But money today isn't worth the same as money five years ago and if we valued our money in terms of the dollar in say 2000, revenue growth has been flat at best. That's where the chart I posted came in. The amount of revenue growth (which it measures) is tempered by inflation. If we valued our dollars today equally with the dollar of the past, then you see that revenue growth today pales with the 90s when we had higher tax rates with similar economic growth. Thus the argument that tax cuts somehow make higher revenue (in real dollars as opposed to nominal amounts) is bogus.
Again, no, they haven't. Government revenues are up 6% in nominal terms over the past 5 years (encompassing all of the Bush tax cuts). Government has grown far more than 6% over that time. Nice try, though. And there has not been a reduction in the deficit. There has been since 2003 - but that was the 2nd round of smaller tax cuts. However, the reason for the deficit in the first place was substantially the tax cuts of 2001. Before that, there was no deficit. So the deficit is far worse than it was prior to the tax cuts. The idea that tax cuts are fiscally responsible and pay for themselves has not shown to be the case, just as it hasn't in every previous attempt at it.
Fortunately, this year those two items are synonymous. The GOP's agenda and record of incompetence and malfeasance is scandalous to put it midly.
PWNED again. I love it when people post graphics with "assumes" in them. You know what that means kids?
Bull**** dude, we're discussing growth. Those are growth rates of tax reciepts. Seeing how you are arguing that federal tax reciepts have GROWN substantially with tax cuts, that chart serves to disprove that notion by showing how GROWTH in tax reciepts is actually less than it was in the 90s with supposedly higher tax rates and equivalent economic growth. Furthermore, that chart takes inflation into account which is something previous charts didn't do. I would say something stupid like PWNED, but honestly thats just ridiculous sounding.
IROC it, will you send me a check for $5,000 today? If so I will send you one for $5,000 in 2012, no questions asked.
I'm just united your base, ace. Scared yet? I am the new voice of the "Sheep for W." I love stirring your pot.
I admit to your mind, if you can frame the argument I am inconsistent. Using my actual positions I am not. Have a nice day.
