CBO projects record revenue in 2013 - not enough for Obama

[wygator]

CBO forecasts all-time record income for US government:

Federal revenue will return to its pre-recession levels in 2013, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), setting a record for the most money the government has ever taken in.

In its latest Budget and Economic Update, the CBO forecasts that federal revenue will top $2.7 trillion in 2013, slightly higher than the $2.6 trillion the government collected in 2007, when the last recession officially began.

But that is nowhere near enough for the Dems and Obama:

President Barack Obama said on Sunday more tax revenue would be needed to reduce the U.S. deficit and signaled he would push hard to get rid of loopholes such as the “carried interest” tax break enjoyed by private equity and hedge fund managers.
[...]
“There is no doubt we need additional revenue, coupled with smart spending reductions in order to bring down our deficit. And we can do it in a gradual way so that it doesn’t have a huge impact,” he said...

...House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday that Democrats will push for more revenue in the fight over raising the debt ceiling – an issue Republicans say was already settled in the just-completed fiscal cliff deal.
President Barack Obama had wanted $1.6 trillion in new revenue, but settled for $620 billion raised from higher income tax rates for the wealthy.

source

[oragator1]

Setting aside the tax debate for a second, the basic premise is less than complete. Is it the most we have brought in in constant real dollars, or the most when measured against GDP? It's a cherry picked metric to make a partisan political point.

[Gatoragman]

2.7>2.6
Nothing political about that!

[dangolegators]

When you factor in population growth and inflation, we're still about 300 billion short of 2007 levels. Per capita revenues were around $8637 in 2007 from a population of 301 million. Factoring in inflation, 8637 would be about 9500 in 2012 (don't have the inflation number for 2013 yet). The population in 2013 is around 315 million. To get the same amount of revenue per person (and accounting for inflation), total revenues would have to be around 3 trillion to equal 2007 levels. So we're still about 300 billion short.

But I guess only in conservative lala land do things like inflation and population growth not matter.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

When you factor in population growth and inflation, we're still about 300 billion short of 2007 levels. Per capita revenues were around $8637 in 2007 from a population of 301 million. Factoring in inflation, 8637 would be about 9500 in 2012 (don't have the inflation number for 2013 yet). The population in 2013 is around 315 million. To get the same amount of revenue per person (and accounting for inflation), total revenues would have to be around 3 trillion to equal 2007 levels. So we're still about 300 billion short.

But I guess only in conservative lala land do things like inflation and population growth not matter.

Only in liberal land does it not make sense to collect at least a little federal income tax from the 47%

[Matthanuf06]

How can we not operate within a $2.7 trillion dollar budget?

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by wygator

Only in liberal land does it not make sense to collect at least a little federal income tax from the 47%

But I thought we had a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Now you agree we need to raise taxes? I'm all for going back to Clinton era tax rates for everyone.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

But I thought we had a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Now you agree we need to raise taxes? I'm all for going back to Clinton era tax rates for everyone.

No, I don't agree we need to RAISE taxes. I think we gone too far with standard deductions and the income levels at which some small federal tax kicks.

I think everyone with earned income should pay a small federal tax. Skin in the game.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by wygator

No, I don't agree we need to RAISE taxes. I think we gone too far with standard deductions and the income levels at which some small federal tax kicks.

I think everyone with earned income should pay a small federal tax. Skin in the game.

They do. It's called FICA and Medicare. In addition, the lower incomes pay higher rates on sales taxes and other state and local taxes. If anything, our overall tax structure isn't progressive enough.

Also, reducing deductions and raising taxes are the same thing. So if you are in favor of reducing reductions, then you are in favor of raising taxes.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

They do. It's called FICA and Medicare. In addition, the lower incomes pay higher rates on sales taxes and other state and local taxes. If anything, our overall tax structure isn't progressive enough.

Also, reducing deductions and raising taxes are the same thing. So if you are in favor of reducing reductions, then you are in favor of raising taxes.

How do they pay higher rates on sales tax?

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

When you factor in population growth and inflation, we're still about 300 billion short of 2007 levels. Per capita revenues were around $8637 in 2007 from a population of 301 million. Factoring in inflation, 8637 would be about 9500 in 2012 (don't have the inflation number for 2013 yet). The population in 2013 is around 315 million. To get the same amount of revenue per person (and accounting for inflation), total revenues would have to be around 3 trillion to equal 2007 levels. So we're still about 300 billion short.

But I guess only in conservative lala land do things like inflation and population growth not matter.

What do expect with 50 million on food stamps...would you expect per capita revenue to go up? I hope not.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

How do they pay higher rates on sales tax?

They pay a higher percentage of their income in sales taxes. You understand the concepts of progressive and regressive taxation?

[wygator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

They do. It's called FICA and Medicare. In addition, the lower incomes pay higher rates on sales taxes and other state and local taxes. If anything, our overall tax structure isn't progressive enough.

Also, reducing deductions and raising taxes are the same thing. So if you are in favor of reducing reductions, then you are in favor of raising taxes.

I thought SS and Medicare were social programs or entitlements, not taxes. After all, lower income people will receive both...right?

[wygator]

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

Now we're up to at least 3.7 trillion.

Edit...added the following:

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%.

[wygator]

Oh yeah, Obamacare isn't a tax either

[HALLGATOR]

If you reduce deductions then it is the same thing as raising taxes when it is applied. I don't have any problem with letting lower income people pay more but it is what it is.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by wygator

I thought SS and Medicare were social programs or entitlements, not taxes. After all, lower income people will receive both...right?

If SS isn't a tax, then why are all you cons claiming Obama raised taxes when the the temporary lower rate expired last month?

And higher income people receive SS and medicare as well, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say there.