Federal Government to Receive Record REVENUES in 2013

[madgator]

but will still run close to a trillion dollar deficit

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-federal-revenue-set-record-2013


but we don't have a spending problem and we need to get the discussion of MORE revenues on the table.

[oragator1]

That's real dollars, what about relative to GDP?

[dangolegators]

Adjusting for inflation and population growth, projected revenues in 2013 are about 300 billion behind where they were in 2007. In 2007 dollars, per capita revenues were about $8637. If inflation adjusted per capita revenues were still $8637 in 2013, total revenues would be about 3 trillion. So in real terms, accounting for inflation a population growth, federal revenues are about 300 billion less than they were in 2007.

[dangolegators]

That's real dollars, what about relative to GDP?

Depends on what 2013 GDP is, but federal revenues in 2013 will be around 1.5 percent less than they were in 2007. Revenues as a percentage of GDP were 18.5% in 2007. Assuming GDP of around 16 trillion in 2013, the number would be about 17% for 2013. So it's still no where close to where it was in 2007. If revenues were 18.5% of GDP in 2013, total revenues would be around 3 trillion, or about 300 billion higher than they are projected to be.

[gatordowneast]

So libbies, should the emphasis be on cutting expenses or should the rich just give 100% of their income to the government. ****note- If they did, we would still have a deficit.

[surfn1080]

There goes Dan again twisting numbers. On top of that there is no source?

Dan the revenue is what it is. Why try to manipulate the numbers??? We will have more revenue now then ever before.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

There goes Dan again twisting numbers. On top of that there is no source?

While they are certainly some twisted #s, you really shouldn't need a link for federal receipt & outlay as a percentage of GDP, it's publicly, widely available.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

[PSGator66]

Twisting the numbers and the truth is what the libbies do best and how else would they be able to hoodwink so many people.

[dangolegators]

There goes Dan again twisting numbers. On top of that there is no source?

Dan the revenue is what it is. Why try to manipulate the numbers??? We will have more revenue now then ever before.

Inflation and population growth don't matter?

[dangolegators]

While they are certainly some twisted #s, you really shouldn't need a link for federal receipt & outlay as a percentage of GDP, it's publicly, widely available.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Explain how computing the differences in real per capita revenues between 2007 and 2013 amounts to 'twisted' numbers?

[HudsonGator]

While there may be more revenue, there is also more expenditures, including the greatest transfer of wealth there is, social security and medicare.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Explain how computing the differences in real per capita revenues between 2007 and 2013 amounts to 'twisted' numbers?

Well for one that isn't what you did.

That said, receiving record revenues isn't, in itself, very noteworthy considering we are experiencing GDP growth. It's like implying the government has cut back on taxation when revenue plummeted after 2008.

[surfn1080]

Population growth matters expect for the fact we have the baby boomers now enter retirement and a large amount of our young unable to find jobs.

Now lets look at inflation. Just simply stating you need to adjust for inflation is not enough. Consider wages have gone down while food and gas has gone up. The dollar is still weak compared to other leading nations.

With that, the tax increase on the rich has helped giving us the extra revenue. It does not matter as Obama has already set to increase spending. The sequester was a reduction in a spending increase....

[mastoidbone]

Few people would argue revenue is below historic norm. We have room to raise revenue---and all should share that pain.

That said---spending is even more out of historic norms---and even with 300 billion more in revenue this year we would need 500 billion in cuts to balance---

So it is clear that spending is by far the bigger problem---though both need change.

I would seek a balance of $1 in taxes with $4 in cuts in entitlements and govt salary and pensions.

That would be ideal balance and balance budget in less then 10 years.

Keep in mind that would be recessionary---but we ARE living way above our means--financed by next generation. Each year we have been stealing 6-10% of GDP from future in form of debt as represented by yearly deficit.
So pain now for healthy future.

[HudsonGator]

We should have a war tax. We have essentially been paying for the war on terror with a credit card.

Add up all the money spent over the last 12 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, pass a tax that every citizen would pay, and have the tax go off the books once all the debt from the war has been paid off.

People need to be reminded that there is always a cost for invading another country, both in blood and in treasure.

[mastoidbone]

Well I always thought bush and congress committed treason when they cut taxes when starting a war--in our history we always raised taxes and asked all to sacrifice---this was the exception and treasonous.

Merits of war are debatable---cutting revenue when you know you need more is treason.

[HudsonGator]

Treason, no.

Bad policy, yes.

[dangolegators]

Well for one that isn't what you did.

That said, receiving record revenues isn't, in itself, very noteworthy considering we are experiencing GDP growth. It's like implying the government has cut back on taxation when revenue plummeted after 2008.

Sure it is.

[dangolegators]

Well I always thought bush and congress committed treason when they cut taxes when starting a war--in our history we always raised taxes and asked all to sacrifice---this was the exception and treasonous.

Merits of war are debatable---cutting revenue when you know you need more is treason.

Obviously not a case of treason, just stupidity.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Sure it is.

No.

[dangolegators]

No.

I did, but I'll try to make it so that you can understand it. I used the BLS inflation calculator in my earlier post, but I will use the table you provided, with real federal revenues (2005 dollars) for this one.

In constant 2005 dollars, federal revenues were 2.41 trillion 2007. Population in 2007 was 301 million. This means that revenues per person were $8007 in 2007 (in constant 2005 dollars.

In constant 2005 dollars federal revenues in 2013 are projected to be 2.24 trillion. Population in 2013 is 313 million. This means that revenues per person are projected to $7157 in 2013. So in real terms, the fed govt is collecting about $850 less per person in 2013 than they were in 2007.

In my earlier example I showed what revenues would have to be in 2013 in order to equal what revenues were in 2007, accounting for inflation and population growth. With (nominal) revenues of 2.6 trillion in 2007, revenues would have to be around 3 trillion in 2013 to be equivalent to the levels of 2007. The point is, in real per capita terms the federal govt is still collecting a lot less in revenues than they were in 2007.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Yes, that is called massaging #s to get the narrative you want. It doesn't preclude the statement in the OP.

[wygator]

However you want to play with the numbers, the fact is that federal government growth the past decade has FAR exceeded adjustments for inflation and population growth combined. I looked up the numbers and posted them on another thread recently.

[HudsonGator]

However you want to play with the numbers, the fact is that federal government growth the past decade has FAR exceeded adjustments for inflation and population growth combined. I looked up the numbers and posted them on another thread recently.

And how much of that growth is as a result of increases in medicare and medicaid?

[dangolegators]

Yes, that is called massaging #s to get the narrative you want. It doesn't preclude the statement in the OP.

Yes, and it would also be true if the OP stated that revenues in 2013 are way way way higher than they were in 1940. Doesn't mean a whole lot though does it?

[wygator]

And how much of that growth is as a result of increases in medicare and medicaid?

I don't know...you find the info. Regardless of where the spending increase comes from, it comes out of our pockets.

I found my earlier post about the actual increase in govt spending relative to inflation and population growth:

Total federal spending was barely 2 trillion in 2002. Not that long ago.

Now we're up to at least 3.7 trillion.

Dug up some additional data.

Total inflation from 2002 to 2012 was 27%

US population increased from 288 million to 315 million over the same period - 9.4% gain.

Add the two and a logical increase for federal spending from 2002 to 2012 would be 36.4%.

The actual increase was 85%.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=256639#ixzz2MbV9uVBR

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Yes, and it would also be true if the OP stated that revenues in 2013 are way way way higher than they were in 1940. Doesn't mean a whole lot though does it?

On its own, absolutely not.

Nor does comparing an adjusted revenue at the tail end of a recession to the upper end of the boom (which is still wrong, according to the BLS the adjusted revenues for 2007 would be 2,852B, and we're expected to see 2,902B)

In short, it doesn't mean anything and your #s still didn't tell the story you wanted them to.

[dangolegators]

However you want to play with the numbers, the fact is that federal government growth the past decade has FAR exceeded adjustments for inflation and population growth combined. I looked up the numbers and posted them on another thread recently.

And revenues are much lower when adjustments for inflation and population growth are made. We need to reduce spending and increase revenues.

[dangolegators]

On its own, absolutely not.

Nor does comparing an adjusted revenue at the tail end of a recession to the upper end of the boom (which is still wrong, according to the BLS the adjusted revenues for 2007 would be 2,852B, and we're expected to see 2,902B)

In short, it doesn't mean anything and your #s still didn't tell the story you wanted them to.

I'm not the one who chose to compare revenues for years 2007 and 2013. That was done by the OP. The OP states that revenues for 2013 are at an all time high. When adjusting for inflation alone, they are not. When adjusting for inflation and population growth, they are not. And when measuring revenues as a percentage of GDP revenues are not at an all time high. So by every meaningful measure used when comparing revenues over time, revenues are not at an all time high. But if you want to say revenues are higher in 2013 than they were in 2007, have at it. That's about as meaningful as saying revenues are higher in 2013 than they were in 1940.

As for this: "(which is still wrong, according to the BLS the adjusted revenues for 2007 would be 2,852B, and we're expected to see 2,902B)". The projection you are referring to is 2 years old and includes the assumption that ALL of the Bush tax cuts would expire. This projection is now out of date. The more recent projection is from this year and it is 2.7 trillion. This is the CBO projection that is used in the OP. I used the most recent projection based on the most recent data. You are using an outdated projection.

But even still, if you only look at the table YOU provided, it shows that real revenues in 2013 are still projected to be lower than real revenues were in 2007 by 2409 billion to 2414 billion. And that's with all Bush tax cuts expiring. As we know, that did not happen.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

As for this: "(which is still wrong, according to the BLS the adjusted revenues for 2007 would be 2,852B, and we're expected to see 2,902B)". The projection you are referring to is 2 years old and includes the assumption that ALL of the Bush tax cuts would expire.

Nope, most recent estimate and I also used BLS data for inflation adjustment.

[HudsonGator]

I don't know...you find the info. Regardless of where the spending increase comes from, it comes out of our pockets.


So you want to do away with Medicare and Medicaid?

[dangolegators]

Nope, most recent estimate and I also used BLS data for inflation adjustment.

Looking at the document you presented more closely, the 2013 number is based on the budget the president submitted last year. That budget was not passed into law. Obviously you don't understand the document that you presented. It does not show what the 2013 revenues are projected to be under current law. It shows what the 2013 revenues would have been projected to be (by the president) if the president's budget had been passed. The CBO projection of 2.7 trillion is the proper projection to use, accounting for current law. That is what the OP is using and that is what I am using. You are using a number based on a budget that didn't pass.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Which budget passed again?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

BTW, the CBO estimates for the first four months of this year would put this year's receipts waaaaay above that estimate anyway, by an order of about $400B.

[dangolegators]

Which budget passed again?

Certainly not the one you are saying is the real projected revenue number for 2013.

[dangolegators]

BTW, the CBO estimates for the first four months of this year would put this year's receipts waaaaay above that estimate anyway, by an order of about $400B.

Let's have a link for that. If true, that is a good thing.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Yes, let me be your Google

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43915_%20MBR_2013_01.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43915

[dangolegators]

BTW, the CBO estimates for the first four months of this year would put this year's receipts waaaaay above that estimate anyway, by an order of about $400B.

Ok, so you're wrong again. Revenues so far are 12% above what they were in 2012. For the entire year, CBO projects revenues to be 2708 billion, or about 10.5% above what they were in 2012. If the current increase of 12% holds for the entire year, revenues in 2013 would be 2743 billion, which is 35 billion above the projection, not 400 billion. But thanks for the links.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

That is not what the document says.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

And even if it were, that is the same # as in 2007, adjusted for inflation. So your point is still wrong.

[dangolegators]

That is not what the document says.

What's it say then?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

It doesn't say this:

but federal revenues in 2013 will be around 1.5 percent less than they were in 2007.

[dangolegators]

It doesn't say this:

No, I agree it doesn't. But was does it say?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

If the current increase of 12% holds for the entire year, revenues in 2013 would be 2743 billion, which is 35 billion above the projection, not 400 billion. But thanks for the links.

It also doesn't say this.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

So you're 0-for-2 so far.

[dangolegators]

It also doesn't say this.

No, I agree it doesn't say that, I said that. It says revenues are up 12% over last year. If that increase holds, revenues for 2013 would be 2743. I said that, based on the data in your link.

Now where does it say that revenues will be around 400 billion higher than projected?

[dangolegators]

By this way this,

but federal revenues in 2013 will be around 1.5 percent less than they were in 2007.

refers to revenue as a percentage of GDP. If the projections hold, it would be around 17% of GDP. In 2007 revenue was 18.5% of GDP. Are you not able to understand this either?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

By this way this,



refers to revenue as a percentage of GDP. If the projections hold, it would be around 17% of GDP. In 2007 revenue was 18.5% of GDP. Are you not able to understand this either?

This takes us back to "massaging" data to say something completely different. And it's another meaningless metric anyway.

[dangolegators]

This takes us back to "massaging" data to say something completely different. And it's another meaningless metric anyway.

Um, you are the one who referenced it, even though it has nothing to do with the question I have repeatedly asked you and that you have not answered.

And you'll need to tell economists everywhere that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP is a meaningless metric.

[dangolegators]

Can you tell me where it says revenues are on pace to be 400B higher than projected?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

And you'll need to tell economists everywhere that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP is a meaningless metric.

Well, I am an economist by trade, so I'll get started on that.

Typically, spending as a percentage of GDP is referenced as a meaningful metric, not revenue. There tends to, you know, be a fairly predictable trend with the latter.

[dangolegators]

Well, I am an economist by trade, so I'll get started on that.

Typically, spending as a percentage of GDP is referenced as a meaningful metric, not revenue. There tends to, you know, be a fairly predictable trend with the latter.

I am very surprised that you are an economist. I never would have thought that. You have a PhD? But do get started telling your fellow economists that spending as a percentage of GDP is a meaningless metric for comparing spending across years as opposed to using nominal spending.

Now can you tell me about the 400 billion in additional revenues that you say we are on pace for according to the CBO doc?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Now can you tell me about the 400 billion in additional revenues that you say we are on pace for according to the CBO doc?

It wasn't according to the CBO document, it was a YOY comparison from 12->13 given a 12%-15% increase in revenues over the original estimates.

But do get started telling your fellow economists that spending as a percentage of GDP is a meaningless metric for comparing spending across years as opposed to using nominal spending.

So you cannot read?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Let me write it again for you: federal spending as a % of GDP is the metric that's considered to have meaning. Barring major changes in taxation, federal receipts as a % of GDP is fairly predictable.

[SydneySLee]

And how much of that growth is as a result of increases in medicare and medicaid?Everything you want is here:

OMB Historical Tables (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)

For both revenue and expenditures.

[dangolegators]

It wasn't according to the CBO document, it was a YOY comparison from 12->13 given a 12%-15% increase in revenues over the original estimates.


What were the original estimates? Are you basing it on that fictional 2902 billion from Obama's budget that wasn't passed? The 2902 that we have debunked as a current estimate of 2013 revenues? If so, the CBO docs you linked most definitely don't say that.

[dangolegators]

Let me write it again for you: federal spending as a % of GDP is the metric that's considered to have meaning. Barring major changes in taxation, federal receipts as a % of GDP is fairly predictable.

You got an links or citations that will show other economists feel as you do? That spending as a percentage of GDP is important but revenues as a percentage of GDP isn't? Revenues fluctuate with the economy as much or more than spending does. So are you going to say that deficits as a percentage of GDP are meaningless too? Because revenues are half of the deficit equation.

You're just making stuff up.

[madgator]

You got an links or citations that will show other economists feel as you do? That spending as a percentage of GDP is important but revenues as a percentage of GDP isn't? Revenues fluctuate with the economy as much or more than spending does. So are you going to say that deficits as a percentage of GDP are meaningless too? Because revenues are half of the deficit equation.

You're just making stuff up.


I see a lot of statements without links from you......

[orangeblueorangeblue]

If so, the CBO docs you linked most definitely don't say that.

Yeah, as I said several times, I did not attribute that to the CBO documents.

Revenues fluctuate with the economy as much or more than spending does.

Yes, and in that case they are generally equally represented in GDP, whereas spending does not necessarily follow that pattern. In other words, it rarely tells you something you didn't already know.

You're just making stuff up.

This is comically ironic.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I don't speak for economists. I only had one job in the field and it was about 8 years ago.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

If we review the OP:

Federal Government to Receive Record REVENUES in 2013 Reply to Thread

Almost certainly true.

but will still run close to a trillion dollar deficit

Almost certainly true.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

So what was the retort? An attempt to say that in 2013 dollars, the 2007 revenues were higher.

Now whether this is true or not (almost certainly will not be), it doesn't impact the central premise of the OP. If we adjust the deficit in 2007 to 2013 dollars, we come up not with $1T+, but $200B.

[dangolegators]

Yeah, as I said several times, I did not attribute that to the CBO documents.


Ok, let's go through the play-by-play.

You said:

BTW, the CBO estimates for the first four months of this year would put this year's receipts waaaaay above that estimate anyway, by an order of about $400B.

I said:

Let's have a link for that. If true, that is a good thing.

You said:

Yes, let me be your Google

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...BR_2013_01.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43915


Ok, so we have you making a claim, me asking for a link to verify you claim, and you providing me with links. So I look through the links and find that they clearly don't say what you said they say. THen I ask you a bunch of times what you think the CBO documents say. Now you are saying that you said several times that you did not attribute the 400 billion in increased revenues to the CBO docs you presented me when I asked you where you got the 400 billion number from.

So where are these 'several' times where you said that you did not attribute your 400 billion number to the CBO documents? You realize that we're in the middle of this thread and this stuff is pretty easy to verify. All I have to do is look at your posts and see you never said it.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I never attributed it to CBO. I don't understand why that's hard to understand.

But again, you're running from your deflections here.

Do you not agree that we are running extraordinary deficits? That's the central premise of the OP.

[dangolegators]

I never attributed it to CBO. I don't understand why that's hard to understand.


So when you said this:

BTW, the CBO estimates for the first four months of this year would put this year's receipts waaaaay above that estimate anyway, by an order of about $400B.

And then provided CBO links to support the claim, you weren't actually attributing it to CBO. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[oragator1]

So what was the retort? An attempt to say that in 2013 dollars, the 2007 revenues were higher.

Now whether this is true or not (almost certainly will not be), it doesn't impact the central premise of the OP. If we adjust the deficit in 2007 to 2013 dollars, we come up not with $1T+, but $200B.

it is slightly below.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Federal%20Revenue%20In%20Const ant%20Dollars&units=d&size=m&year=1950_2013&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b_b&spending0=1965_2348_2872_2885_2871_2632_2828_2882_ 2737_2643_2993_2968_2844_2970_3053_3071_3303_3600_ 3505_4030_3900_3566_3746_3909_4043_3875_3871_4295_ 4461_4724_4780_5018_4830_4475_4742_5022_5101_5454_ 5560_5786_5747_5604_5593_5717_6030_6267_6529_6887_ 7334_7577_8096_7705_6984_6521_6629_7288_7821_8039_ 7621_6268_6295_6501_6785_7779

Yes our budget is a mess and has been for decades with only one small brief respite, but the number provided in the original post is kind of like saying I am rich because I make 20 times more than the average person did in 1950, or that we are paying 15 times the taxes we should because revenues are 15 times what they were then. Inflation, population growth and economic growth are all relevant when looking at revenues, to only throw up a flat number is only telling a piece of the story.

[dangolegators]

Do you not agree that we are running extraordinary deficits? That's the central premise of the OP.

Yes, I agree, we are running very large deficits. Now do you not agree that CBO projected 2013 revenue is less than the revenue from 2007 in real, inflation adjusted terms? And is it ok with you that someone pointed that out? Or is that just a totally irrelevant piece of information when one is comparing revenues from 2 different years?

[HudsonGator]

it is slightly below.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Federal%20Revenue%20In%20Const ant%20Dollars&units=d&size=m&year=1950_2013&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b_b&spending0=1965_2348_2872_2885_2871_2632_2828_2882_ 2737_2643_2993_2968_2844_2970_3053_3071_3303_3600_ 3505_4030_3900_3566_3746_3909_4043_3875_3871_4295_ 4461_4724_4780_5018_4830_4475_4742_5022_5101_5454_ 5560_5786_5747_5604_5593_5717_6030_6267_6529_6887_ 7334_7577_8096_7705_6984_6521_6629_7288_7821_8039_ 7621_6268_6295_6501_6785_7779

Yes our budget is a mess and has been for decades with only one small brief respite, but the number provided in the original post is kind of like saying I am rich because I make 20 times more than the average person did in 1950, or that we are paying 15 times the taxes we should because revenues are 15 times what they were then. Inflation, population growth and economic growth are all relevant when looking at revenues, to only throw up a flat number is only telling a piece of the story.

In other words, it is how to lie with statistics.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Now do you not agree that CBO projected 2013 revenue is less than the revenue from 2007 in real, inflation adjusted terms?

Possibly, possibly not. There was the initial projection from the CBO, a revised projection and there will likely be a Q3 projection. It could be close, but in all likelihood 2013 will be record revenue in relative dollars.

This information is only irrelevant because the primary point in the OP is that despite the highest (or just shy of the highest, just for you) revenue in history, we will end up with the second-highest or third-highest deficit in history. This makes going back to 2007 a particularly bad idea when you look at the adjusted deficit in that year compared to 2010-2013.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cL_y2cIEzoE/UTZAx-Zs8BI/AAAAAAAABYA/8nOGCsndKjg/s1600/keynes.jpg

[mastoidbone]

So to be clear--
With increased revenue and new taxes we still are no where near a decent budget ( decent means a deficit of 2-3% of GDP)---and Obama is against big cuts....oh dear.