Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 61

Thread: Fact Check Article on US Fed Revenues and Spending

  1. #1

    Default Fact Check Article on US Fed Revenues and Spending

    This is an interesting article. Factcheck does a first rate job.

    Link: http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/
    Fiscal FactCheck

    Summary

    Washington's spending has recently been higher as a percentage of the nation's economic output than at any time since World War II. But by the same measure, Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years.

    So does the U.S. have "a spending problem," as Republicans keep repeating in the current debate over how to reduce the nation's record deficits? Or is the problem that taxes are not high enough? Those questions frame a long-running partisan debate, and as usual we won't offer an opinion one way or the other. But for those seeking their own answers, we can offer some fiscal history and factual context.


    Some key facts we think are worth considering:
    • Federal spending ("outlays" in budget jargon) is expected to equal 24.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The figure was 25 percent in fiscal year 2009, highest since 1945.
    • On the other hand, federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8 percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the figure was 14.4 percent.
    • These historically high rates of spending and low rates of taxation have combined to produce a chain of deficits that are also the highest since WWII. The deficit was 10.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009. It declined to 8.9 percent last year as the economy started to recover, but is projected to go up to over 9 percent this year. Each of these deficits is larger than in any year since 1945, measured as a percentage of GDP.
    • The U.S. is borrowing about 36 cents of every dollar spent so far this year. It borrowed 37 cents on the dollar last year, and 40 cents in fiscal 2009.
    • The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent). Interest payments on the federal debt alone accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending, and that percentage is rising.
    • The federal income tax accounted for 41.5 percent of federal receipts in 2010 (down from 49.6 percent prior to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 – 2003). Corporate taxes brought in only 8.9 percent, also down sharply since the recent recession. Payroll taxes and other "social insurance" payments accounted for 40 percent of total receipts in 2010.
    It's easy to argue one side or the other by just citing facts that support a particular view, and omitting others. In the Analysis that follows, we offer some graphics, details and documentation in an attempt to give our readers a quick look at the entire picture — both where the money goes, and where it comes from.



    Analysis

    A glance at this chart quickly puts our current fiscal mess in historical context. We created it using historical budget data from the federal Office of Management and Budget, updated with the most recent estimates of the current fiscal year's outlays and receipts from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, issued June 22 as part of CBO's 2011 long-term budget outlook.
    Not since the enormous effort required to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII has the gap between Washington's spending and its revenues been so large, as a portion of the economy. Then, taxes were increased sharply to pay for the war, but spending increased even faster. In recent years, Washington has increased spending while cutting taxes.

    The current situation is a marked change from the booming 1990s. In those years revenues increased, due to a 1993 tax increase, which fell most heavily on those making more than $200,000 a year. Meanwhile spending decreased relative to the rapidly growing economy, partly because of an absolute decline in military spending following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Deficits were erased, and the government posted surpluses in fiscal 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

    But then a string of deficits began in the fiscal year 2002, and there is no end in sight. For the current year, the administration originally projected in February a deficit equal to 10.9 percent, a new postwar record. The Congressional Budget Office in April, using different economic assumptions, projected that enacting the president's budget would produce a deficit of 9.5 percent of GDP, and that making no changes to current law would result in a deficit of 9.3 percent of GDP.



    What has produced these huge budget gaps? Tax cuts and wars have been big factors, as have recessions and expanded spending for health care in both Republican and Democratic administrations. For example:
    • Income-tax receipts are down sharply since the Bush tax cuts. In fiscal 2000, the year before the cuts began to take effect, receipts from the federal income tax on individuals amounted to 10.2 percent of GDP. That figure was down to 6.2 percent of GDP last year.
    • Spending for the military and for homeland security has risen substantially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Spending for national defense rose from 3.0 percent of GDP that year to 4.8 percent last year.
    • Non-military spending also has continued to rise. President George W. Bush pushed through an expensive prescription drug benefit for seniors in 2003, the largest expansion of Medicare in its history. In the financial crisis of 2008, Bush also pushed for and signed for a massive banking bailout. In early 2009, President Barack Obama pushed for and signed an expensive stimulus measure, and after a long fight in Congress he signed another expensive plan, the health care law, in March of last year, aimed at expanding coverage for millions who lack health insurance.
    • Two economic recessions have had their effect. The recession of 2001 began in March and lasted until November. And the worst downturn since the Great Depression began in December 2007 and continued until June 2009. In both cases unemployment remained high for long after business activity began to recover, holding back both wages and the taxes that jobless workers would have paid on them.
    We won't attempt to assign blame to one party or the other for the deficits. There is plenty of blame to go around, some of which rests with an American public that won't accept cuts in the largest categories of public spending, and also resists tax increases on anybody but "the rich."


    Where Does It Go?

    The biggest share of federal spending now goes for Social Security (20.4 percent in 2010) and Medicare (13.1 percent), the two entitlement programs that big majorities of Americans want to protect from any reductions, according to a recent poll. Together these two programs for senior citizens consume more than one-third of spending, far more than national defense, which accounts for just 20.1 percent, despite the increases of recent years.
    Some categories that are unpopular with much of the public turn out to represent a fairly small part of total spending. Foreign aid, for example, amounts to less than 1 percent of the entire budget — even counting in military assistance to Israel, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan. All agriculture programs — including farm subsidies — make up just over one-half of 1 percent.


    Where Did It Go?


    Major components of the $3.5 trillion spent in fiscal 2010

    Social Security 20.4%
    National Defense 20.1%
    Medicare 13.1%
    Medicaid/CHIP 8.1%
    Interest 5.7%
    Low-Income Assistance 5.3%
    Unemployment Compensation 4.6%
    Education & Training 3.7%
    Federal Employee Retirement 3.5%
    Veterans 3.1%
    Transportation 2.7%
    Other health care 2.6%
    Parks & natural resources 1.3%
    Space/Science0.9%
    Foreign aid 0.9%
    Agriculture 0.6%
    Everything else 3.5%

    The wildly unpopular TARP program, used to finance banks, a big insurance company and two U.S. auto companies, is now actually bringing billions back into the Treasury, as old loans are repaid and government-owned stock is sold to the public. The nonprofit investigative project Pro Publica figures that $322 billion has now flowed back into the Treasury, of the $573 billion loaned, invested or spent originally. And even the Obama administration's $787 billion stimulus program, so excoriated by Republicans, has nearly run its course. It was enacted in 2009, and according to the official Recovery.gov website, had spent 84 percent of the total as of June 30. That included 90 percent of the tax benefits, 83 percent of entitlements, and 78 percent of contracts, grants and loans.


    Borrowing 36 Cents on the Dollar

    The current gap between tax revenue and congressionally approved spending is so great that so far this fiscal year the federal government has borrowed an average of 36 cents of every dollar paid out. According to the most recent "Monthly Budget Review," issued by the Congressional Budget Office on July 8, the total spent through the end of June (the first nine months of the current fiscal year) was estimated at $2.705 trillion. But government receipts fell $973 billion short of spending, CBO estimates.

    The good news — if it can be called that — is that the huge deficit is running at $31 billion lower than last year at this time. Spending is higher (Medicaid is up 6 percent over last year, for example), but federal income tax receipts are running higher as well. CBO credited "higher wages and more employment" than last year for the increase in tax revenue. And borrowing 36 cents on the dollar is an improvement of sorts. For all of fiscal 2009, the deficit amounted to 40 cents of every dollar spent, and it was 37 cents in fiscal 2010.


    Where the Money Comes From

    Taxes make up the vast bulk of federal revenues, of course. Individual income-tax payers supplied 41.5 percent of all federal revenues in fiscal 2010, but Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes paid both by workers and their employers made up nearly as much. Combined with federal unemployment insurance taxes and a few others, these social insurance taxes made up 40 percent of revenues. The income tax on corporations brought in just under 9 percent, while excise taxes, on such things as gasoline and diesel fuel, alcoholic beverages and telecommunications services, brought in just over 3 percent.

    We found a surprising bit of news buried in the "other" category, which made up 6.5 percent of all revenue.

    Breakdown of "other" in 2010

    (Percent of total revenues)
    Federal Reserve 3.5%
    Customs 1.2%
    Misc 1.0%
    Estate & Gift 0.9%
    Total "Other" 6.5%

    It turns out that in 2010, more than half of that category came from profits made by the Federal Reserve System, whose lending operations expanded dramatically to address the financial crisis that started in 2007. The Fed's payments to the Treasury made up 3.5 percent of all federal revenue in 2010 — nearly $76 billion. The rest of the "other" category is made up of customs duties (1.2 percent of all revenue), federal estate and gift taxes (0.9 percent), and miscellaneous sources.


    Who Pays?

    Who pays all of these taxes? The best information on that comes from the Congressional Budget Office, which has tracked the tax burden for many years. The most recent complete data cover 2007. CBO figured in that year more than half of all federal taxes was paid by the top 10 percent of income earners. They paid 55 percent of all federal taxes in 2007, CBO said.

    That's a comprehensive figure, counting the income tax, payroll taxes, excise taxes and even the corporate income tax (borne by stockholders in the form of reduced dividends and appreciation). And perhaps surprisingly, the top 10 percent of earners pay a greater share of federal taxes now than they did before the Bush tax cuts, which Democrats constantly criticize as a giveaway to "the rich." The top 10 percent paid 50 percent of all federal taxes in 2001.

    However, that comes in spite of lower tax rates at the top, not because of it. The reason the most affluent 10 percent pay a greater share of taxes is that they are getting a greater share of all income. Their share of all pre-tax income went from 37.5 percent in 2001 to 42 percent in 2007.

    One figure that gets a lot of attention is the percentage of individuals and married couples who pay zero federal income taxes. Those figures come from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The TPC's most recent report was released June 14, and it shows that this year 46.4 percent of "tax units" (individuals or married couples) had zero federal income tax liability. That's because of various exemptions and tax credits aimed at reducing the income-tax burden on lower-income workers and families with children. The figure is down from 2008 and 2009, when the percentage topped out at 50.8 percent.

    But practically all workers (and their employers) pay Medicare taxes on every dollar of wages, and Social Security taxes on every dollar of wages up to $106,800. Consequently, those who pay no federal income or payroll taxes at all amount to only 18.1 percent this year, the Tax Policy Center figures.

    There's plenty more where these figures came from. We could focus more closely on what was paid and earned by the top 1 percent, for example. Or we could zoom in to examine the role of rising medical and drug costs in pushing up spending for Medicare and Medicaid. We may well visit those subjects in future articles. For now, we've tried to give a quick, accurate and balanced look at the big picture: Both where Washington spends, and where its money comes from.
    – by Brooks Jackson
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  2. #2
    Some comments:

    I found it interesting (sad, really) that science and space got .9% of the budget. I suppose weapons reasearch, including the Air Force's space research, is in the Defense Budget, so there's that too....

    Also, the wealthy pay 55% of all taxes today but in 2001, before the Bush tax cuts, they only paid 50% of all taxes. Huh? Fact Check explains that in this same time period, the incomes of the wealthiest went up a lot more than everyone else, accounting for the higher portion of taxes paid.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  3. #3
    Not terrible, but I take exception to their explanations of why things are unusually bad right now. It has everything to do with the recession and very little to do with war spending, tax cuts, TARP, Medicare Part D, and Obamacare. Oh, obviously military/security spending has contributed to our total debt, but not our current deficit. Bush's tax cuts certainly helped a little bit, but you can see deficits had narrowed significantly by the end of his term, so I doubt that's a major factor (they were probably getting back to some equilibrium after cuts). TARP was a one-time ding that is getting nearly all paid back (it may even make a small profit). Medicare Part D is a better argument, but the real costs are in the future and not now. Obamacare even more so - few of the costs have figured in our deficits.

    The entirety of the problem is the economy. Automatic stabilizers and fiscal stimulus have pushed spending up a few percentage points of GDP, and unemployment combined with deleveraging has cut revenues a few percentage of GDP. Get rid of this effect, and you'd be much closer to the long run average of revenues running at 18-19% of GDP and spending at 20-21% of GDP; eminently sustainable.

    In the future, we do have many things to be concerned about vis-a-vis deficits: notably healthcare (including Medicare Part D, Obamacare, and everything else) and Social Security. But those two are honestly not the culprits for our current deficit problems.

    edit: Defense resesarch covers a hell of a lot more than weapons development. We get a lot of DoD money for regenerative medicine work, and they're interested in a whole range of science and technology: lots of medical stuff to deal with traumatic injuries and rehabilitation, lots of social science stuff related to counterinsurgency and the like, lots of new materials development, robotics, autonomous systems, etc. That being said, the US' investment - both private and public - in R&D is dangerously low and should be increased immediately.

  4. #4
    What do you think about the Debt Ceiling drama? Ok, not about the drama itself, but about the options:

    A. What do you think about the "default" option. From what I've read, they wouldn't forgoe bond and interest payments, they would forgoe some portion of SS, Medicaid/care or Federal employee payments, so technically, not a default.

    B. What do you think about sudden and drastic spending cuts? I've heard discussion that the economy is a little fragile right now for big spending cuts - recession might result....

    C. What about tax increases/ loophole closures, assuming they are modest and targeted to the least vulnerable industries and income earners?

    D. What do you think about the wars? To help reduce the deficit, would you favor a swift pull-out from Afghanistan and/or Iraq? Would you favor the US abandoning whatever it is we're doing in Libya?

    EDIT:

    Also, I took this to mean:

    The wildly unpopular TARP program, used to finance banks, a big insurance company and two U.S. auto companies, is now actually bringing billions back into the Treasury, as old loans are repaid and government-owned stock is sold to the public. The nonprofit investigative project Pro Publica figures that $322 billion has now flowed back into the Treasury, of the $573 billion loaned, invested or spent originally.
    the were NOT blaming TARP....?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    What do you think about the Debt Ceiling drama? Ok, not about the drama itself, but about the options:

    A. What do you think about the "default" option. From what I've read, they wouldn't forgoe bond and interest payments, they would forgoe some portion of SS, Medicaid/care or Federal employee payments, so technically, not a default.
    Awful idea. It doesn't matter if there's a default on US Treasuries; people will still see this as not honoring our obligations and will punish the US with higher interest.

    B. What do you think about sudden and drastic spending cuts? I've heard discussion that the economy is a little fragile right now for big spending cuts - recession might result....
    I've been very clear that I think immediate austerity is harmful in the US and frankly not needed. A medium term deficit plan with teeth is more than sufficient, and will avoid the contractionary effects of austerity during an anemic recovery.

    C. What about tax increases/ loophole closures, assuming they are modest and targeted to the least vulnerable industries and income earners?
    I feel our tax system needs to be simplified in general, which includes removing almost all of the loopholes/deductions/exemptions/etc. and lowering overall rates for everyone - in particular the corporate income tax rate which is ridiculously high. Rates should be lowered only enough to allow a slight increase in revenue to help pay off the recession debt, but I think implementation should be put off a year or two to make it truly countercyclical.

    I don't think anything should be 'targeted', though - industries shouldn't enjoy subsidies one way or the other, whether or not they are 'vulnerable'. We should still have a progressive income tax, of course, but since most of the loophole/deductions help the rich, they're already taking a harder hit from their removal.

    D. What do you think about the wars? To help reduce the deficit, would you favor a swift pull-out from Afghanistan and/or Iraq? Would you favor the US abandoning whatever it is we're doing in Libya?
    Libya is chump change. Whether or not it's a good idea is not a question of money but a question of strategy.

    As for Iraq, it's also winding down and not much money (a few tens of billions a year now), so I wouldn't worry too much about that.

    Afghanistan is expensive, but not a huge portion of our deficit - less than 10% of the deficit if it was completely removed. It's an open question what our criteria should be for leaving, but there's a bit of a moral obligation here not to leave the country in a complete mess.

    ...the were NOT blaming TARP....?
    Yeah, except they mentioned it earlier in the list of reasons why we had a big deficit. I hate articles that list things and then in the fine print say, 'well, yes, but in actuality it's not true'. Don't say it in the first place, then.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Not terrible, but I take exception to their explanations of why things are unusually bad right now. It has everything to do with the recession and very little to do with war spending, tax cuts, TARP, Medicare Part D, and Obamacare. Oh, obviously military/security spending has contributed to our total debt, but not our current deficit. Bush's tax cuts certainly helped a little bit, but you can see deficits had narrowed significantly by the end of his term, so I doubt that's a major factor (they were probably getting back to some equilibrium after cuts). TARP was a one-time ding that is getting nearly all paid back (it may even make a small profit). Medicare Part D is a better argument, but the real costs are in the future and not now. Obamacare even more so - few of the costs have figured in our deficits.
    We've had recessions before. We haven't had spending that was 24% of GDP since WWII.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Some comments:

    I found it interesting (sad, really) that science and space got .9% of the budget. I suppose weapons reasearch, including the Air Force's space research, is in the Defense Budget, so there's that too....

    Also, the wealthy pay 55% of all taxes today but in 2001, before the Bush tax cuts, they only paid 50% of all taxes. Huh? Fact Check explains that in this same time period, the incomes of the wealthiest went up a lot more than everyone else, accounting for the higher portion of taxes paid.
    I strongly, massively object to the way Factcheck instantly conflated revenue and tax rates. In addition to being piss-poor analysis, it was dishonest.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    We've had recessions before. We haven't had spending that was 24% of GDP since WWII.
    Well, it's pretty obvious, isn't it? This is a far more severe recession than any since WWII, and it would have been far worse without massive fiscal stimulus. Also, our automatic stabilizers are far more extensive than they were in the past, which already drives up spending proportional to the depth of the recession.

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I strongly, massively object to the way Factcheck instantly conflated revenue and tax rates. In addition to being piss-poor analysis, it was dishonest.
    Yeah, agreed on a lot of the 'analysis'. I also didn't like their cherry-picking of some data. Comparing things from the height of the dot-com bubble to the tail end of a recession (with a significant output gap remaining) is pretty dishonest. That being said, many of the facts were at least mostly true.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Well, it's pretty obvious, isn't it? This is a far more severe recession than any since WWII, and it would have been far worse without massive fiscal stimulus. Also, our automatic stabilizers are far more extensive than they were in the past, which already drives up spending proportional to the depth of the recession.
    Are you really going to keep on using this argument? We had far worse economic situations between 1945 and 2007; far, far worse. To claim that the current situation is so horrible that it calls for unprecedented spending is absurd. Hell, we only increased spending by 4% of GDP between 1931 and 1942, which included the New Deal and armament for war.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Yeah, agreed on a lot of the 'analysis'. I also didn't like their cherry-picking of some data. Comparing things from the height of the dot-com bubble to the tail end of a recession (with a significant output gap remaining) is pretty dishonest. That being said, many of the facts were at least mostly true.
    I don't give a rats ass if many of the facts were mostly true. ANY OF US would find it childs play to distort material if the standard we had to meet was "may of the facts must be mostly true." You noticed the cherry-picking data. I noticed that they changed terms, hell they changed the entire system of measurement, from presenting the "spending sides" facts to presenting those for the "taxation" side. That wasn't just bad presentation, it was deliberate distortive bias.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    Are you really going to keep on using this argument? We had far worse economic situations between 1945 and 2007; far, far worse. To claim that the current situation is so horrible that it calls for unprecedented spending is absurd. Hell, we only increased spending by 4% of GDP between 1931 and 1942, which included the New Deal and armament for war.
    How are you determining worse? If you mean the drop in GDP, you're right: aggressive fiscal intervention kept the actual trough of US GDP fairly reasonable. But first, that aggressive intervention cost money, and has driven up our spending. Second, we haven't had any 'catch-up' growth, but rather a return to trend growth, meaning there's a gigantic output gap - and lingering unemployment and the like. This extends the use of automatic stabilizers than have been seen in previous recessions.

    More broadly, I've seen a growing body of economics research analyzing financial crises suggests that they are particularly challenging to address and require far more fiscal and monetary stimulus than you might get from a differently based economic downturn. Thus, even if there were deeper recessions (though it's hard to come up with a good counterfactual given ARRA), there hasn't been a comparable financial crisis since 1929 - even the oil embargo doesn't come close.

    Also, your cherry-picking of data is ridiculous. US WWII spending starting jumping in 1942 (to 22% of GDP) and then skyrocketed to 42% of GDP in 1943.


    LF: yeah, maybe there was something deliberate. I'm willing to be a bit more charitable: they just didn't do enough research and parroted what they'd heard/read rather than doing some critical thinking.
    Last edited by wiggin; 07-20-2011 at 04:07 AM.

  12. #12
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    This is an interesting article. Factcheck does a first rate job.
    Amen to that. The Ministry of Propaganda really should hire these guys on full time.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  13. #13
    13.4% if you combine Medicaid/CHIP with Low Income assistance. I mean really those groups are the same type of category. Wealth redistribution.

  14. #14
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    13.4% if you combine Medicaid/CHIP with Low Income assistance. I mean really those groups are the same type of category. Wealth redistribution.
    It's a lot more than 13.4%, Lewk.

    Spoiler:
    Opinion: What Does Government Do?
    Feb 19, 2011 – 5:00 AM

    Pop quiz. What's the biggest single job the federal government undertakes?

    National defense? Nope.

    Homeland security? Wrong.

    Transportation? Not even close.

    Law enforcement? No way.

    Education? Getting colder.

    Foreign aid? Are you kidding?






    Nope, the biggest single thing the federal government does these days is ... cut checks.

    Lots and lots and lots and lots of checks that go to individual citizens -- $2.3 trillion worth last year alone.

    In fact, according to a table buried deep inside the little-noticed Historical Tables volume of the White House's 2012 budget, these "direct payments to individuals" accounted for more than two-thirds of federal spending in 2010. That's a post-war high.


    Payments to individuals as a share of the total federal spending

    Source: Office of Management and Budget, FY 2012 Budget


    And that share has been steadily climbing. Payments to individuals accounted for 2.4 percent of all federal spending in 1945. By 1980 it has risen to 47 percent, and in 1992 it crossed the 50 percent mark. (See first chart.)

    Where does all this money go? More than half goes to seniors through Social Security and doctors and hospitals providing Medicare benefits. Only about 38 percent goes to the poor. And the rest of the payments end up with farmers, students, the unemployed, those looking for retraining help, veterans and other select groups.

    And the biggest of these direct payment programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- are also the fastest growing in the federal budget.


    Share of the federal income taxes paid: Richest 1% vs. Bottom 50%.

    Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data


    At the same time, the federal government increasingly relies on fewer and fewer taxpayers to cover its costs.

    In fact, according to the IRS, which collects such data, the share of income taxes paid by the richest 1 percent almost equals the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 95 percent. Today, roughly a third of those who file a tax return don't pay any federal income tax at all, or get more in refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes. (In 1985, only 18 percent fell into this camp, according to the Tax Foundation.)

    When you put these two trends together, what you find is that the federal government has over the years essentially turned into a gigantic wealth-transfer machine -- taking money from a shrinking pool of taxpayers and giving it out to a growing list of favored groups.

    Now, depending on your political perspective, you could view this is a good thing or a bad thing.

    But whatever your view, this situation will make getting the federal budget under control increasingly difficult, since it will invariably involve pitting those writing checks against those cashing them.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I strongly, massively object to the way Factcheck instantly conflated revenue and tax rates. In addition to being piss-poor analysis, it was dishonest.
    Agreed, this was a really miserable sentence that really says a lot about how off-base this piece was:

    "The current situation is a marked change from the booming 1990s. In those years revenues increased, due to a 1993 tax increase, which fell most heavily on those making more than $200,000 a year."

    Revenue increased because the 1990s was an epic economic boom. I guess because this is factcheck.org (which is meant to monitor the media), they follow the dominant media narrative of a linear relationship between revenue and taxes.

  16. #16
    There is some relationship between revenues and taxes. Reagan famously raised taxes in the 80s to bring deficits down, and it worked, at least temporarily. Obviously it's not a one-for-one correspondence, though.

    I think that there's a lot of hyperbole surrounding the raising taxes issues. The left is rabidly in favor of raising taxes on the better-off and corporations to close much of the deficit. The right claims that will have negative economic consequences and taxes should never be raised. In principle, they're both right and both wrong. In general, raising taxes is bad for growth, investment, employment, etc... and it rarely raises as much revenue as people think it will because of avoidance behavior (which is why appropriately designed Pigovian taxes are far better than most forms of taxation). Yet cutting spending is often also bad for growth, investment, employment, etc., and cutting certain programs can have negative externalities that result in higher spending elsewhere (e.g. automatic stabilizers) and lower revenues than projected.

    The solution, of course, is some sort of compromise. First, picking the low-hanging fruit of spending cuts and unnecessary tax breaks will deal with the easy things - and easy fixes to entitlements to restrain spending growth works, too. After that, though, you have tough choices. There's no guaranteed 'best' ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, but it almost certainly isn't 100% either way. The commonly accepted ratios being batted around by economists is about 2:1 or 3:1 (or even 4:1) spending cuts to tax increases, which are probably at least roughly reasonable.

  17. #17
    This time I didn't have to look up Pigovian You're right about the left/right being right/wrong. Somehow "compromise" became a dirty word associated with betraying principles. Didn't the administration offer a 3:1 solution that was roundly rejected by the Tea Party Nation? Didn't the Republicans reject a proposal to reduce spending from 24% to 19% of GDP, after they said spending should be cut to 17% of GDP....because it came with revenues they saw as taxes?

    My numbers might not be perfect there, but didn't they reject a deal on about 2 percentage points which is kinda chump change?

  18. #18
    2% of GDP isn't chump change. And to be fair with the latest mess, some more D flexibility on Medicare/SS reform might allow some R flexibility on taxes. (That being said, my feelings on the Tea Party in this debt ceiling mess as well established in my earlier thread.)

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    There is some relationship between revenues and taxes.
    Of course there is. That's why I also said it was piss-poor analysis, because they never explored it at all, beyond one brief line so buried in there that I can't even find it now. They just made the bald assertion that lower revenue was because of lower tax rates and vice versa.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  20. #20
    CC - I'm not sure if SS is very redistributive (at least not regular SS, SSI and disability might be more so). Rich folks tend to live longer thereby gaining more benefit.

  21. #21
    Re: SS and redistribution. SS benefits are taxed for the wealthier (it phases in for higher incomes), so it effectively pays out less benefits for a given amount put into the system for the wealthy.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    2% of GDP isn't chump change. And to be fair with the latest mess, some more D flexibility on Medicare/SS reform might allow some R flexibility on taxes. (That being said, my feelings on the Tea Party in this debt ceiling mess as well established in my earlier thread.)
    Well, military spending of $10 billion per month isn't chump change, either.

    What's not "flexible" about democrats agreeing to reforms to Medicare/SS in the future? Why are republicans "inflexible" on defining any revenue as a tax, even if that means getting rid of subsidies and tax deductions in exchange for lower tax rates overall?

  23. #23
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Re: SS and redistribution. SS benefits are taxed for the wealthier (it phases in for higher incomes), so it effectively pays out less benefits for a given amount put into the system for the wealthy.
    ...and relies a lot on inflation to prevent "beneficiaries" from actually getting back the same amount of money they originally put in (in real terms). But of course, it has to, as all Ponzi schemes are ultimately unsustainable and designed to take your money.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  24. #24
    US GDP = $14.6 trillion (roughly)

    2% of GDP = $300 billion (roughly)

    US spending on Libya, annualized = $3.5 billion (v. rough estimate)

    US military spending on Iraq, FY2012 estimate = $10 billion (ish)

    US military spending on Afghanistan, FY2012 estimate = $108 billion

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    US GDP = $14.6 trillion (roughly)

    2% of GDP = $300 billion (roughly)

    US spending on Libya, annualized = $3.5 billion (v. rough estimate)

    US military spending on Iraq, FY2012 estimate = $10 billion (ish)

    US military spending on Afghanistan, FY2012 estimate = $108 billion
    Perhaps the $10 billion monthly military bill number included pay for active duty, deployed, plus their medical care and family support, plus National Guard or Reserves, plus costs of training and housing new enlistments, plus DoD budgets for planes/carriers/ships/weapons. I don't really know how these costs are divvied up by department.

    Last reports for cumulative costs tallied Iraq and Afghanistan at $3 TRILLION. So far.

  26. #26
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Last reports for cumulative costs tallied Iraq and Afghanistan at $3 TRILLION. So far.
    Chump change, even if accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662
    The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached nearly $107 trillion in today's dollars! That is about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  27. #27
    So fucking what? The global risk exposure to special financial "vehicles" like CDOs and CDSs and all other Derivatives is estimated at $600 Trillion

  28. #28
    GGT you need to use bigger fonts for bigger numbers! And you have to make a face like this to it:
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  29. #29
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Yes, silly me for bringing up the biggest source of US government debt in a thread about US government debt and spending. I clearly wasn't thinking, and should strive harder to avoid doing it in the future.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    "The current situation is a marked change from the booming 1990s. In those years revenues increased, due to a 1993 tax increase, which fell most heavily on those making more than $200,000 a year."

    Revenue increased because the 1990s was an epic economic boom. I guess because this is factcheck.org (which is meant to monitor the media), they follow the dominant media narrative of a linear relationship between revenue and taxes.
    Wait, they didn't mean revenues as percentage of GDP?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •