Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

     The federal government raked in a record of approximately $2,472,542,000,000 in tax revenues through the first eleven months of fiscal 2013, which ran from Oct. 1, 2012 through the end of August, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement for August. That is up about $285 billion from the approximately $2,187,527,000,000 in taxes the government took in through August of fiscal 2012. Despite these record tax revenues, the federal government still accumulated a $755 billion deficit in the first eleven months of fiscal 2013. Total federal spending through the first eleven months of the fiscal year was $3.228 trillion. -

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    The costs of living in this socio-capitalistic technological paradise.

    Now, fork it over.

     

    What was the deficit in sept. '12...?

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    Fork it over, so it can be redistributed to Democratic cronies   "invested in our kid's futures".....

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Fork it over, so it can be redistributed to Democratic cronies   "invested in our kid's futures".....



    Because what kind of republican elitists idiots would want something like that...?

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Let us not forget that Obama did extend the Bush Tax Cuts....     



    You mean the Obama Tax Cuts...he owns that now.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    The costs of living in this socio-capitalistic technological paradise.

    Now, fork it over.

     What was the deficit in sept. '12...?

     



    wow, really??

    It's the cost of a bloated, greedy, corrupt, and wasteful federal govt!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Let us not forget that Obama did extend the Bush Tax Cuts....     



    uh ok. that was good. the problem is the federal govt confiscates a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take............

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus


     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    These numbers are absolutely irrelevent and useless when talking about fiscal conditions.

    The proper number to look at is the revenue as a % of GDP

    Normal economies have a natural increase in revenues year over year, as the economy grows so does revenue.

    The US historically collects between 18 - 20 % of GDP in revenue.

    Today we are between 15 - 16 % of GDP and have been that way since the recession.

     

     




     

    You should tell that to CNS.  Maybe they could hire you?

    Thanks for telling us all that we can ignore facts and count on you for our information.

    [/QUOTE]

    He's obviously right - look at the numbers from 1998-2000, when tax rates were higher than they are today.  Now look at 2009-2010, where tax rates were basically the same as 2008, but GDP was shrinking.  

    The more money you make, the more you pay in taxes, regardless of rate changes.  Same is true of the country.

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    Who is hurting more for revenue, Mr and Mrs US citizen or the federal govt??

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

    These numbers are absolutely irrelevent and useless when talking about fiscal conditions.

    The proper number to look at is the revenue as a % of GDP

    Normal economies have a natural increase in revenues year over year, as the economy grows so does revenue.

    The US historically collects between 18 - 20 % of GDP in revenue.

    Today we are between 15 - 16 % of GDP and have been that way since the recession.

     

     

     




     

     

    You should tell that to CNS.  Maybe they could hire you?

    Thanks for telling us all that we can ignore facts and count on you for our information.



    He's obviously right - look at the numbers from 1998-2000, when tax rates were higher than they are today.  Now look at 2009-2010, where tax rates were basically the same as 2008, but GDP was shrinking.  

     

    The more money you make, the more you pay in taxes, regardless of rate changes.  Same is true of the country.

     

     




     

    Yes, of course, CNS is wrong.  The factual data is wrong too.  Why are you and airborne here when you should be writing for some major media outlets, doing analysis, and making millions?

    Geeeeeez.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't have a problem with the numbers - just your interpretation.  Next year will set a new record, and the year after that, and the year after that until we see either 1) significant changes to the tax code or 2) GDP contraction.  But there's nothing wrong with that - we should set a record year after year, as we did from 98 - 2001, until the Bush tax cuts kicked in.  And then again from 2003 - 2008 when the GDP did, in fact, contract.

    Do you know anything about "CNS"?  I've never heard of them, and their wikipedia page looks like they're pretty biased; the editor worked on Pat Buchanan's campaign; the former editor is working for the republican national commiittee.  Their motto is "The Right News; Right Now".  And their current lead story is that there are a record number of poor people in the country, which is the same cheap trick of using population or GDP growth to frame an argument dis-honestly.

    Here's an analogy for you - you know what else is at a record high right now?  The number of jobs in the US workforce.  We have more employed people than ever before at any point in our nation's history.  Pretty great, right?

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Let us not forget that Obama did extend the Bush Tax Cuts....     




    So, did the Bush tax cuts work?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Apparently the neo-cons think of federal spending as some kind of static mirage that isn't affected by outside influences.

    The current total revenue may have been a record in nominal value but it isn't in real-time value. In fact it has been flat for a decade or more.

    And this only proves that tax revenues have been depressed for a number of years over some length of time resulting in a larger than normal debt and the accumulating interest payments that accompany it.

    If you compare todays federal revenue with revenue from a decade ago, that number is virtually unchanged in constant current dollars. So despite being in two wars, an unfunded Medicare drug benefit, a large cut to tax revenue and a growing and aging population, federal revenues haven't increased to meet these new and/or ongoing expenses.

     



    Tax revenues have been depressed? 

    By who (whom?)

    Let's cut every single one of those programs.  Clearly the economics indiciate that we cannot afford them, and will never be able to afford them.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Apparently the neo-cons think of federal spending as some kind of static mirage that isn't affected by outside influences.

    The current total revenue may have been a record in nominal value but it isn't in real-time value. In fact it has been flat for a decade or more.

    And this only proves that tax revenues have been depressed for a number of years over some length of time resulting in a larger than normal debt and the accumulating interest payments that accompany it.

    If you compare todays federal revenue with revenue from a decade ago, that number is virtually unchanged in constant current dollars. So despite being in two wars, an unfunded Medicare drug benefit, a large cut to tax revenue and a growing and aging population, federal revenues haven't increased to meet these new and/or ongoing expenses.

     

     

     




     

     

    Wrong! (as usual)

    "The record of $2,472,542,000,000 in federal tax revenues through August is in non-inflation-adjusted dollars. However, even when adjusted for inflation, the $2,472,542,000,000 brought in through federal taxes in the first eleven months of fiscal 2013 exceeds the real federal tax revenue in any of the last 16 years except for 2007, when federal tax revenues were approximately $2,282,318,000,000 in 2007 dollars and $2,571,309,020,000 in 2013 dollars.

    The largest single bloc of federal tax revenue so far this year has come in the form of individual income tax payments, which were approximately $1,175,536,000,000 through the first eleven months of fiscal 2013. That is about $116.017 billion more than the approximately $1,015,419,000,000 in individual income taxes that was collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2012.

    Fiscal year federal revenues (in millions) through August:

    Current year dollars.......................................Constant 2013 dollars

    1998: 1,540,474                                            2,207,659.90

    1999: 1,626,454                                              2,280,511.10

    2000: 1,805,566                                              2,449,320.53

    2001: 1,831,708                                              2,416,034.23

    2002: 1,660,527                                              2,156,156.00

    2003: 1,590,675                                              2,019,431.07

    2004: 1,672,432                                              2,068,149.42

    2005: 1,901,703                                              2,274,604.27

    2006: 2,123,378                                              2,460,378.00

    2007: 2,282,318                                              2,571,309.02

    2008: 2,251,414                                              2,442,703.10

    2009: 1,885,712                                              2,053,234.55

    2010: 1,916,539                                              2,053,123.25

    2011: 2,062,347                                              2,141,347.47

    2012: 2,187,527                                              2,225,657.28

    2013: 2,472,542

     

    This post has been removed by airborne

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey nitwit, what part ofthe following don't you get?

     

    "except for 2007, when federal tax revenues were approximately $2,282,318,000,000 in 2007 dollars and $2,571,309,020,000 in 2013 dollars."

     

     

    What part of revenue between 98 and 12 being virtually the same don't you get?

    1998: 1,540,474                              2,207,659.90

    ""
    2012: 2,187,527                              2,225,657.28

     


    What's the matter spanky, the numbers to big for you?

    [/QUOTE]

    stipulated.

    So, grasshopper, what does this tell you about the governments ability to raise more revenue, and or/ the maximum rate at which revenues are maximized?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    "Here's an analogy for you - you know what else is at a record high right now?  The number of jobs in the US workforce.  We have more employed people than ever before at any point in our nation's history.  Pretty great, right?"

     

    The labor force participation rate -- the percentage of people over 16 who either have a job or are actively searching for one -- fell to 63.2% in August. The last time it was that low was in August of 1978.



    Then how can we have this chart?  There are more jobs than ever in this country.  How do you explain it?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    Ironic how the totally failed Obama statist economic policies tanked the private economy so bad, it has resulted in less than expected tax revenues...

    Giving Government worshippers like airborne cause to complain that the poor starving federal government doesnt get enough...

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    These numbers are absolutely irrelevent and useless when talking about fiscal conditions.

    The proper number to look at is the revenue as a % of GDP

    Normal economies have a natural increase in revenues year over year, as the economy grows so does revenue.

    The US historically collects between 18 - 20 % of GDP in revenue.

    Today we are between 15 - 16 % of GDP and have been that way since the recession.

     

     



    Didn't the GDP calculation change recently?  Didn't this change have about a 3% uptick/downtick?  (depending how you look at it).

     

    So, taking that into account, the apples to apples GDP to revenue has not changed.

    I think the one take away from the revenue numbers is that, given conditions, we have maximized the take, year in, year out, and it is essentially flat over this time, yet spending has tripled (maybe doubled?) in the same time frame.

    How does that work out?

    Oh, and one last thought:  Isn't our GDP largely funded by borrowing, whihc is the same as takign it from future years?  what's our "real" GDP?  Care to take a guess?  Most econs say it has been flat to down for a number of years.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Feds confiscate a record amount of money from citizens but, still spend more than they take.....geebus

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    "Here's an analogy for you - you know what else is at a record high right now?  The number of jobs in the US workforce.  We have more employed people than ever before at any point in our nation's history.  Pretty great, right?"

     

    The labor force participation rate -- the percentage of people over 16 who either have a job or are actively searching for one -- fell to 63.2% in August. The last time it was that low was in August of 1978.

     



    Then how can we have this chart?  There are more jobs than ever in this country.  How do you explain it?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, a couple of things to consider:

    The population of the country has grown.  We need @ 200K jobs per month to keep current withthe population growth at this point.  This chart doesn't even come close.

    The job loss was enormous.  it will take to 2025 to get back to the same level of employment as 2009.

    Most of these new jobs are part time, so yes, there are more jobs, but it takes maybe 3-5 of these part time jobs to equal one full-time job.  So, in real terms, things are still headed down.

    And, one more observation:  We have more nat. gas in this country than ever, and if it wasn't for that, these numbers would be even worse. And, beforeoyu go praising Obama on this, production is way down on government lands.  This is driven by other than federal exploration.

    Your chart is selective.  Draw it back to 2000 and get back to me.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share