State of The Union 2012

[we vs us]

Let's hope he doesn't play games with Congress and the Senate by tying a massive tax increase on the wealthy that even members of his own party don't want to see right now. 

Can you clarify what you're referring to?  Has he done that in the past?  And if he has, why hasn't the GOP done the time honored thing and negotiated him down to something acceptable?

If we know anything about Obama, we know he's willing to give most anything away. 

[Cats Cats Cats]

In 2003 the rate was cut to 15% and revenues grew by 45% over the following three years.

And what happened after that?

[Gaspar]

And what happened after that?

Stock market decline and recession after 2001.  Some moron knocked a couple of buildings down 3,000 people lost their lives and our economy was thrown into recession.  The Bush tax cuts were enacted (tax relief and reconciliation acts of 2001 and 2003) this had an immediate negative effect on revenue as receipts decreased in the short term, and as expected, the following year (2004) revenues increased by 13%.

[AquaMan]

Don't bother. He has an answer for anything that looks weird to the rest of us. Like a tax raise in 1986 that took 5 years to show revenue decreases. Just ignore all the details in between like wars and stuff.

edit: unless it helps to prove his thesis like he just did to you.

[Gaspar]

Don't bother. He has an answer for anything that looks weird to the rest of us. Like a tax raise in 1986 that took 5 years to show revenue decreases. Just ignore all the details in between like wars and stuff.

edit: unless it helps to prove his thesis like he just did to you.

Not sure I see your statistic, but go with what ya know!
 

Presented as a % of GDP

[AquaMan]

You wrote:

Between 1968 and 1972 rates increased by 10 percentage points and revenues fell 21%. this is a period of time that had lots going on not just Nixon raising taxes
In 1978 the rate fell by 15 points from 35% to 20% and revenues increased by 46%. In one year? Weird. You going to give Carter credit for that?
In 1986 the rate was raised by 8 points to 28% and by 1991 15% less revenue was being raised. It took 5 years for a tax hike Reagan put in to drop 15%? Yet again the "mother of all wars" was in their somewhere, the collapse of the Berlin Wall and lots of other stuff. But you act as if its directly related to a tax hike. Yeah.
In 1996 the rate was reduced by 8 points to 20% again and by 2000 revenues had grown by some 50% Really. Ignore the bubble expanding, credit relaxing and general revenue growth from the maturing of technology like internet and cell. Nah, it was that tax reduction way back 4 years ago.
In 2003 the rate was cut to 15% and revenues grew by 45% over the following three years. Same as above.

Then you're more than willing to justify the possible failure of your thesis by telling Sheen, ..."some morons knocked a coupla buildings down, causing a recession but Bush saved the day by cutting taxes...and that only took two years to hit 13%."

You'll pull stats to prove anything and stretch them to fit.

[Gaspar]

Oh Aqua, there is always "lots going on" and you can use a whole host of historical variables to justify your/my position.

The only thing that remains static is the increases/decreases in rates.  If you would like to argue that I cannot possibly make a causal connection between rate changes and revenues, then so be it.  It does not change the fact that every time we raise rates we observe a revenue decrease.  Sure we can attribute that to whatever you like, but it still happens.

Perhaps this will not be the case in the future.  Perhaps we can try it again, and if revenues decrease we can find some other war, or "lots of stuff" to blame it on.  Statistics are only important to the people that use them as tools.  I concede that.

[nathanm]

Between 1968 and 1972 rates increased by 10 percentage points and revenues fell 21%.
In 1978 the rate fell by 15 points from 35% to 20% and revenues increased by 46%.
In 1986 the rate was raised by 8 points to 28% and by 1991 15% less revenue was being raised.
In 1996 the rate was reduced by 8 points to 20% again and by 2000 revenues had grown by some 50%
In 2003 the rate was cut to 15% and revenues grew by 45% over the following three years.

Wow, you have a great penchant for conflating what happens after recessions end and what the tax code does (and the effects of inflation). You also conflate financial wealth and real wealth.

First off, 190 billion is more than 160 billion. 160 billion being federal receipts in 1968, 190 being federal receipts in 1972. So no.
Secondly, between 1972 and 1978, revenues grew from $200 billion to around $380 billion. So that increase you crow about was already in progress. Way to take credit for the weather.
Thirdly, in 1986, the trend line was already positive and federal revenue continued to grow at approximately the same rate.
Same story in 1996.
In 2003, there was indeed a trend reversal of the sort that happens after every recession. The growth rate of revenue was no better than that achieved in the 90s.

So basically, your post was full of smile.

Edited to add: Raise rates, lower rates, revenue growth was positive every year from 1983 straight on until 2001. If tax policy is such a strong effect, it sounds like those policies are the ones that produce sustained growth. Not the Bush giveaway tax policies, which seem to produce financial crises by increasing speculation.

Also, good job cherry picking. I'm glad to see that you know what the term means.

[Gaspar]

Nate,
We're talking about revenues on capital gains taxes, not total revenues. Total revenues better have seen an increase or we would have been screwed a long time ago!

http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/capital-gains-tax.pdf

[Conan71]

Can you clarify what you're referring to?  Has he done that in the past?  And if he has, why hasn't the GOP done the time honored thing and negotiated him down to something acceptable?

If we know anything about Obama, we know he's willing to give most anything away.  

I don't recall every instance, but let's start with the "jobs bill" back in September which had the tax increases for hedge fund managers and those who own corporate jets for one.  You can Google from there, there's plenty to choose from.  

Wow, Nate way to conflate the numbers, or was that fellating the numbers?

[Teatownclown]

Anybody else notice who here had to wait to weigh in on the verdict until they'd gotten their talking points?

Look, cap gains tax is only part of this equation. When the rate was dropped, there was a helluva lot of selling to capture the new rate and roll over into new assets.

The big number is $250,000. Otherwise, relax.

There will be no tax package until the session goes lame duck in December of this year. So keep you panties dry. I seriously doubt many here will face a huge tax increase thereby missing some meals. Meanwhile, study the positives of collectivism in beating down debt and giving a hand up to those in need.

GOP/Teabagging whiners need to offer up ideas....

[nathanm]

Gassy,

So you're also cherry picking one specific type of revenue. Good call. Given the fungible nature of income in the upper echelons of our society, I would hope that they would be smart enough to shift their income around to produce realized capital gains when capital gains rates are lower. What's foobared up aren't the people who are, perfectly reasonably, calculating their taxes in the way that causes them to owe the least to the government, but the government favoring capital gains over wage income.

When did we become a country that values work less than investment?

[nathanm]

Also, debunk from budgetary experts incoming: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1286

[Conan71]

Gassy,

So you're also cherry picking one specific type of revenue. Good call. Given the fungible nature of income in the upper echelons of our society, I would hope that they would be smart enough to shift their income around to produce realized capital gains when capital gains rates are lower. What's foobared up aren't the people who are, perfectly reasonably, calculating their taxes in the way that causes them to owe the least to the government, but the government favoring capital gains over wage income.

When did we become a country that values work less than investment?

Investment ostensibly creates jobs.

[Gaspar]

He's on a roll.