Earlier this year, I explained that tax revenues would soon climb above their long-run average of 18 percent of GDP, even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were made permanent. In other words, the nation’s fiscal challenge is entirely the result of a rising burden of government spending.
Even though the data on tax revenue comes from the left-leaning Congressional Budget Office (yes, the same folks who seem to think you maximize growth with 100 percent tax rates), many folks on the left simply refuse to believe the numbers. In their minds, it is a religious tenet that red ink is the result of “tax cuts for the rich.”
So I wonder what they will think of this chart, produced by the White House, that shows tax revenues will…drum roll please…rise above 18 percent of GDP even if lawmakers decide to “extend current policy.”
Apologies for the poor quality of the chart, by the way. It was sent out in an email by the White House and posted on the TaxProf Blog. It’s the best copy I can find.
But you don’t need 20-20 vision to see that tax revenues will get to about 18.5 percent of GDP 10 years from now if current tax policy is made permanent.
Here’s a chart I made. It’s not as fancy, but it shows tax revenue for the last 50 years of the 20th Century, plus the years leading up to Obama this century. The average is exactly 18.0 percent, with a slight upward trajectory according to the Excel auto-trendline feature.
The moral of the story is that the tax increase battle is not about deficits and debt. The President’s class-warfare tax policy is designed to enable bigger government.
In the short run, the tax increase will help lock in place the expansion of government that took place during the Bush-Obama years.
In the long run, though, the left will want even more taxes to enable the demography-drive expansion of the welfare state. Higher revenues, in other words, are a substitute for real entitlement reform.
What the left generally won’t admit, however, is that the rich are not a piñata, capable of disgorging limitless amounts of new money. There are big Laffer-Curve effects when tax rates climb too high, largely because upper-income taxpayers have considerable control over the timing, level, and composition of their income.
So the ultimate target will be the middle class, as more and more statists are admitting, and the most worrisome threat is the value-added tax.
P.S. You may have noticed that the White House used 20 percent of GDP as a benchmark in its chart, apparently because we should strive for the fiscal policy we had in Bill Clinton’s second term. I might be willing to take them up on that offer, so long as they’re also willing to accept Bill Clinton’s spending levels.
Excellent review of the hard reality of tax increases without spending cuts of proportionate amounts, ideally 3 to 1 spending cuts vs. tax increases.
Dan, although not invoked by revolution, it’s clear to any clear thinker that the ultimate extrapolation of the trends (i.e. more & more spending on bigger & bigger government, etc) will lead to full nationalization of all ‘companies’ / enterprise, etc since that pathway will send them broke or force them to move to friendlier jurisdictions.
That social experiment has been tried & failed, having then been called communism. The misery & deprivation, death & destruction caused by that wonderful ‘equalizer’ of mankind would be difficult to measure, I imagine; but I thought the falling of the wall sent a fairly clear message…obviously not!
A fascinating dichotomy in all of this is that even the lefties admit that ‘teaching them to fish’ is far more powerful than to ‘give them fish’. This credo fits perfectly with making decisions about spending on charity & 3rd world basket cases (a good excuse to spend less), but is too inconvenient when applied to a domain that might mean their power base / wealth / influence could be negatively affected.
“Those that do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it”…or words to that affect.
KeithB, Perth, Western Australia
[…] White House Agrees with Me, Admits Tax Revenues Will Climb above Long-Run Average Even if All Tax Cu… […]
[…] Because of large spending increases during the Bush-Obama years, the burden of federal spending has doubled in just 11 years. This is why today’s fiscal numbers look so grim. Some argue that tax revenues are below their long-run average of 18 percent of GDP, but CBO estimates show that tax collections will be above the long-run average by the end of the decade even if all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent. And the White House recently admitted this was true as well. […]
[…] Because of large spending increases during the Bush-Obama years, the burden of federal spending has doubled in just 11 years. This is why today’s fiscal numbers look so grim. Some argue that tax revenues are below their long-run average of 18 percent of GDP, but CBO estimates show that tax collections will be above the long-run average by the end of the decade even if all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent. And the White House recently admitted this was true as well. […]
[…] Because of large spending increases during the Bush-Obama years, the burden of federal spending has doubled in just 11 years. This is why today’s fiscal numbers look so grim. Some argue that tax revenues are below their long-run average of 18 percent of GDP, but CBO estimates show that tax collections will be above the long-run average by the end of the decade even if all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent. And the White House recently admitted this was true as well. […]
[…] also know that tax revenues, measured as a share of GDP, will soon be above their post-World War II average and that the tax burden is expected to increase in coming […]
[…] budget assumes that the federal tax burden should remain about 19 percent of GDP, higher than the long-run average of 18 percent of GDP and – for all intents and purposes – permanently enshrining Obama’s fiscal cliff […]
[…] also know that tax revenues, measured as a share of GDP, will soon be above their post-World War II average and that the tax burden is expected to increase in coming […]
[…] Because of large spending increases during the Bush-Obama years, the burden of federal spending has doubled in just 11 years. This is why today’s fiscal numbers look so grim. Some argue that tax revenues are below their long-run average of 18 percent of GDP, but CBO estimates show that tax collections will be above the long-run average by the end of the decade even if all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent. And the White House recently admitted this was true as well. […]
[…] burden of government spending. And the fact that federal tax revenue is gradually climbing back to the historical norm of about 18 percent of GDP doesn’t change the fact that we have a looming entitlement crisis – as illustrated by […]
[…] also know that tax revenues, measured as a share of GDP, will soon be above their post-World War II average and that the tax burden is expected to increase in coming […]
[…] also know that tax revenues, measured as a share of GDP, will soon be above their post-World War II average and that the tax burden is expected to increase in coming […]
[…] also know that tax revenues, measured as a share of GDP, will soon be above their post-World War II average and that the tax burden is expected to increase in coming […]
[…] also know that tax revenues, measured as a share of GDP, will soon be above their post-World War II average and that the tax burden is expected to increase in coming […]
[…] also know that tax revenues, measured as a share of GDP, will soon be above their post-World War II average and that the tax burden is expected to increase in coming […]
[…] also know that tax revenues, measured as a share of GDP, will soon be above their post-World War II average and that the tax burden is expected to increase in coming […]
[…] I guess I’ll begin by pointing out that it’s absurd to argue America’s fiscal problems are the result of taxes being too low. But if you don’t believe me, just look at the White House’s own numbers. […]
[…] I guess I’ll begin by pointing out that it’s absurd to argue America’s fiscal problems are the result of taxes being too low. But if you don’t believe me, just look at the White House’s own numbers. […]
[…] I guess I’ll begin by pointing out that it’s absurd to argue America’s fiscal problems are the result of taxes being too low. But if you don’t believe me, just look at the White House’s own numbers. […]
[…] our long-run fiscal challenge is caused by excessive government spending (and the Obama White House also has confessed this is […]