RJ - I agree, partly because I'm not sure how many are actually paying the increased rates you cited.

In addition to revenue income / spend per capita, we should consider them in relation to the size of the economy (GDP, or a similar and perhaps less volatile measure).

maybe, just maybe you would read yourself?
I started counting the times Ricky talked of taxes vs spending
I stopped counting at 15 the times he said it was a tax problem.
The spending?
the times he mentions spending are as follows

It isn't just spending. The US taxes at lower levels than for decades.

...hardly a condemnation on spending, he claims it isn't "just" spending but extolls nothing but taxation, he only half mentions spending is a problem and barely accepts so, very wishy-washy here?

There are two sides balancing a budget. Spending and revenue.

that's it! He went on yet again to talk nothing about spending but rather ONLY taxation. Sorry but I can read and what I read is nothing but tax tax tax, only a passing mention of spending being an issue at all (an issue he goes on to downplay suggesting spending is not to be cut)

No, I read exactly what he wrote, you want to side with his claiming "I said both" I',m not buying that since he really didn't say it at all did he?

He never said it was 'only' taxation, which is what you complained he was doing. He doesn't need to expound on spending so long as he does (as even you can see) mention it as part of the solution.

If you were to take the same attitude with others on here as you do ricky, you would conclude that several others are saying that it is 'only' spending.

Here's the thing. Just because he does not issue a 'condemnation', does not mean he ignores it. As you concede, he does mention spending, and accepts that it is part of the problem - which is precisely what "It isn't just spending" means - that spending is part of 'it' but so are other things.

Anyone would think that we can only discuss things in absolutist, black-or-white terms.

When ricky does dumb stuff, fair enough. But to put words in his mouth and then have a go at him for them is, well, not very honest if done deliberately. I will be generous and assume it was an error on your part instead.

This is like someone saying don't take offense to what I am about to say and then slamming someone. He then says, "I said don't take offense".

He says (barely) that both count
but he then goes on to state 15 times+ how taxation is the problem, he also downplays the spending, further proving the point that he thinks this is a taxation "only" problem.

Why is it in the global warming section, I do the same thing and am flat out wrong?
I have said there global warming may indeed be happening but... and I go on and on about the antiwarming "stuff", can I not simply go back and say "Hey, I said it may be warming" a sort of get out of jail free card??

And if you wish to take this approach,
Then what I asked is valid.

am I actually hearing this right? Is Ricky trying to say we do not have a spending problem but rather a tax problem?

I asked if I heard it right, your answer should be no you did not hear it right and where did he say we had no spending problem? he did claim "both" where did he claim we had ANY spending problem, he simply stated how a balanced budget must come from both ends, never did he suggest we spent too much, he did however point to where we should not cut funding in many areas, he downplayed the spending problem. What I had asked is 100% correct ...how was I wrong? Nothing you have stated shows me to be wrong now does it?

Ray Jay wrote:It would be better to look at per capita revenue in 2013 after the recent tax hikes. Looking at 2012 is certainly not giving a "complete picture" since many tax increases took effect this year.

Back to this, the Budget forecasts revenue of about $2.7Tn - CS Monitor article, Mar 2013. Wikipedia has the July 2013 population at 316.48 million.

That would make the tax per capita $8,564, which 10.6% higher than 2012, but still 9.2% lower than in 2000 - in other words, it closes that gap by just over half.

In proportion to GDP, the revenue increase is about a third of the gap.

2000 - 23.5%
2012 - 18.0%
2013 - 19.8% (based on the above projection and latest GDP projected growth of 1.5%)

GMTom wrote:I asked if I heard it right, your answer should be no you did not hear it right and where did he say we had no spending problem?

Well, yes, that is the answer (although what you are 'hearing' is still beyond me - unless you are using a screen reader?).

Also, had you read what he'd written, you would not need to ask the question - he implicitly accepts spending is part of the problem in that first post.

It doesn't make you 'wrong', it makes your question moot, at best. I am certainly leaning away from deliberate dishonesty, though, and towards a comprehension failure, if that helps.

Dan could you explain what those three percentages (for 2000, 2012 and 2013) are in reference to? I apologize for my "comprehension failure".

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:It would be better to look at per capita revenue in 2013 after the recent tax hikes. Looking at 2012 is certainly not giving a "complete picture" since many tax increases took effect this year.

Back to this, the Budget forecasts revenue of about $2.7Tn - CS Monitor article, Mar 2013. Wikipedia has the July 2013 population at 316.48 million.

That would make the tax per capita $8,564, which 10.6% higher than 2012, but still 9.2% lower than in 2000 - in other words, it closes that gap by just over half.

In proportion to GDP, the revenue increase is about a third of the gap.

2000 - 23.5%
2012 - 18.0%
2013 - 19.8% (based on the above projection and latest GDP projected growth of 1.5%)

Thanks; fair enough. So, using these numbers, compared to pre GWB and all of his tax cuts (for millionaires and billionaires) we are 9.2% lower on the tax side and 37% higher on the spending side.

Can we agree that it is 75% a spending problem then? Based on that you can see why so many of us are reluctant to offer higher taxes until our spending problem is actually acknowledged and dealt with.

freeman3 wrote:Dan could you explain what those three percentages (for 2000, 2012 and 2013) are in reference to? I apologize for my "comprehension failure".

as a % of GDP

freeman3 wrote:Dan could you explain what those three percentages (for 2000, 2012 and 2013) are in reference to? I apologize for my "comprehension failure".

Sorry, US government revenues as a percentage of US GDP

Ray Jay wrote:Thanks; fair enough. So, using these numbers, compared to pre GWB and all of his tax cuts (for millionaires and billionaires) we are 9.2% lower on the tax side and 37% higher on the spending side.

Well, that 37% is pre-sequester, whereas the 9.2% is post-sequester (and projected, so may not be the actual outcome).

Can we agree that it is 75% a spending problem then? Based on that you can see why so many of us are reluctant to offer higher taxes until our spending problem is actually acknowledged and dealt with.

Pre-sequester it seems to be nearer 2/3 than 3/4. Without spending projections I wouldn't be able to say.

Ah, a spending projection. Of sorts...

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44495

Spending for the 10 months Oct-July down from $2.893T to $2.893T. As the sequester came in about half-way through that period, it's hard to be sure what the full year projection would be. But based on a pro-rated projection, and inflation of 2% (latest figures)...

Spending in 2013
(current dollars) - $3.456T
(2012 dollars) - $3.388T
(per capita) - $10,707

That is a fall of 5.5% from 2013, and is almost exactly 30% higher than in 2000.

On that basis, it does look like post-sequester for 2013 it is about 75%. Of course, the sequester only took effect partway through that year, and not all of it is due to take effect until 2014.

In terms of closing the deficit, the effect is somewhat closer. Revenue increases represent about $826 per capita. Spending reductions represent about $616 per capita.

Another question is how much the budget deal has affected the figures, and how much is down to the growth in the economy - this would increase tax income more quickly than it will reduce spending demands.

The other thing about spending is that a lot of it is non-discretionary. This means it is much harder to control by budgets. A lot of that will be going to retirees. You may be able to cut benefits for future recipients, but good luck on making a drastic reduction in the short term...

I also looked at the changes in Spending and Revenue as a proportion of GDP (the 2013 figures being based on the above projections). The contribution to deficits on those terms are pretty much 50-50:

Revenue as % GDP
2000 - 23.6
2012 - 18.0 (-5.6 points on 2000)
2013 - 19.8 (-3.8 points on 2000)

Spending as % GDP
2000 - 20.8%
2012 - 26.4% (+5.6 points on 2000)
2013 - 24.7% (+3.9 points on 2000)

ray

Can we agree that it is 75% a spending problem then? Based on that you can see why so many of us are reluctant to offer higher taxes until our spending problem is actually acknowledged and dealt with

.
The problem is, and has been seen 1980 is that the reluctance to address the revenue shortfall, at the same time punting on real budget cuts, exacerbates the creation of debt.
Accumulated debt creates locked in spending that creates no services or purchase no production. Interest on the debt.
Since the debt has grown from the 1980s to today, with only a slight blip down under Clinton, these interest payments continue. And they are fixed even more than pensions..
Only if the economy is rapidly or constantly expanding is a deficit managable. The crash and current slow recovery have made the "grow out of debt: option unlikely.
That means both ends of the spectrum have to be addressed in order to correct the situation. The tax fixes in 2013 weren't a complete fix on the revenue side, partly because the bulk of tax payers weren't affected and in their case mostly because they represent consumers spending which is the largest drvier of the economy....
But more of the solution should include higher taxes on Wall Street, and the very rich. Partly because much of the revenue being lost through tax loopholeslike carried interest, , has gone to a very small group of people who are not spending it or investing it domestically. (Well not the majority). Taxing that revenue back would not harm the domestic economy much as a result.

Closing loopholes that have allowed major corporations to avoid taxes if they keep money offshore, would both reduce the deficits, and piut that money back into the American economy...

If neither side (Liberal or Conservative) is willing to budge, what do you recommend we do?

Nothing?

Kick the can?

More taxes cannot be accepted without more budget cuts. Both sides expect the other to bear the brunt. Won't happen. What realistic approach is possible at this time?

Side question: Why did the politicians accept the sequester if it is SOOOO bad for America?