Its just a percentage and doesnt equate to the actual revenues.
lets say the fed govt needs 3 trillion to run off of for one year{just tossing out a random figure here}...what difference does it make if that 3 trillion is 20 30 or 40 percent of GDP...It doesnt....as long as they get their 3 trillion.
Your graph only offers the "excuse" for a tax hike to make it appear revenues are down ..when the revenues are not down...as per my graph
And we also must consider when GDP is higher in general so are revenues as the govt is benefiting from business...thus more revenues as a result....the percentage of GDP may not follow with linearity but its still an increase in revenues.
We want the govt to operate on a lower percentage of GDP not a higher percentage of GDP.
Something else to consider is state and local spending as well..it has increased...thus showing larger responsibilities are being held by the state and local govts...thus the feds should be able to operate on less.
Spending has increased 40 times since 1960 for fed state and local combined.
While we have population growth and inflation to adjust for for that 40x figure we can see that spending increases are actually just a trend and not an actual necessity.
How much more does our govt do for us than they did in 1960....same needs same people.
I just cant agree to any more hikes...I want to see reduced spending...if a trend develops of reduced spending I will then agree to a very small tax increase to aid in paying the debt off faster {and only because the faster it is paid the less is paid in interest}
Just to add to this here is a chart showing GDP increasing 5 fold{roughly} since 1980
If we were to have a constant percent of govt revenues percent of GDP this would mean an increase of 5 fold in revenues.
Why does the fed govt needs 5x the revenues since 1980?
As said they dont need 5x more....this is why it has not held constant percentage wise
But has increased roughly 5 x....do they need 5x more the funds to operate than in 1980.
No...they just want acquire these funds by taking advantage of increased trading.
Why?....as they feels it is fair and no other reason.
In other words..."Here is what we can take without collapsing the economy"
Here is the problem..when you add in the state and local increases as of current we are already at that 6x mark.{revenue gains}..If federal gains{revenues} are increased and state and local are not decreased
Then we have exceeded that same percent GDP in combined burdens....which will squeeze us close to that 40 percent mark for state fed and local combined...this is huge when you consider that much of the GDP includes much Govt spending itself.
Remember also that GDP in not combined incomes and or earning it is a sum of exchanges...which over reflects actual earnings.
If you went in to a store and bought retail....those funds paid wages on a worker that came into your store to purchase retail..that dollar is counted twice.
same applies no matter which outlet it is spent....it has the same effect...people spend their money ...much of this money was earned through trading.{retail or service}
Actual income or earnings is much more difficult to acquire and is not information as readily available as GDP.
Why?
As they dont want people to see how just much actual "earnings" are going to the govt.
Sure 35 percent govt revenues {fed state and local combined} sounds fair thus why GDP is used rather than actual earnings.
Fact is they should be operating on much much less...Does it really takes 5 to 6 times the funds to provide the same needs to the people as 1980?....IMO no...we should be able to cut that number in half{to triple}.
Can you image how much the economy would boom if the average household was 25k average richer per year?
It would boom...but it will still bust later...why we always have these boom and bust cycles....people will charge what you are willing to pay...since we all would be richer by 25 k {average per household}...prices would start to climb.
The rich are not as affected as much by their own 25 K......they will want your 25 k and can raise prices as you will pay the extra cost...they now got richer...isnt much we can do about it..
Whats the solution?
Raise taxes..so we cant buy stuff to make em rich?.
Ok just for demonstration..lets tax only the rich.
The lower man now has more power to buy...so the rich charge him more anyway.
Plus they recoup the loss in raising prices..as you now have it to spend.
No one has gained here....as in 2 to 4 years it will balance off and bust again.
So what do you do?
You never let the low man have to low a tax.
Why not...if you do then you can not lower it anymore..thus you cant stimulate the economy.
With the tax cuts that were given to the lower class they spent...since they were able to buy prices go up to match.
Thus why Obama could not really do much in that area.
Had Bush not been having these low taxes on low incomes and EIC ...this could have been put in place during a recession...to stimulate the economy...he should have eased taxes back in at the lower levels somewhat...but he didnt now we have a mess on our hands...how can we lower taxes on the lower class when it cant be lowered anymore?
What I am trying to say here is you adjust the "buyers" tax to throttle the economy not the "sellers"
problem is we left the throttle wide open as the low man has nothing to gain in tax cuts...you cant throttle it further...already super low rates and EIC for many in the lower class.
Now would be a bad time to introduce taxes back for the lower class as the economy long since balanced off {finished accelerating} from all the cuts.,,and we are still slowing recovering.
Lowering them on the rich will provide some relief /prices lower somewhat but the results are slower and not as pro profound maybe hire an extra guy..same may choose to expand..raising them will cause the opposite.
I just cant approve of any tax hike unless the are injected back into the economy with one thing in mind jobs...Jobs Which cycle back to cause other jobs in the private industry.
