Presented from the Congressional Budget Office June 2011 Long-Term Outlook, the anticipated federal tax burden in terms of GDP between 2013 (the first year the “SuperCommission”‘s $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction will likely affect) and 2021:
Extended-baseline (Bush tax rates expire at the end of 2012, alternate minimum tax not “patched” to protect middle- and lower-income taxpayers, and also the base from which that $1.5 trillion will be scored):
2013 – 18.8% (already well above the 1951-2000 18.06% average)
2014 – 19.9%
2015 – 20.0%
2016 – 20.0%
2017 – 20.3%
2018 – 20.4%
2019 – 20.5%
2020 – 20.6%
2021 – 20.8% (a new non-WWII record, breaking the 20.6% GDP set in 2000)
Alternate Fiscal Scenario (assumes Bush tax rates continue, AMT “patched” annually):
2013 – 17.0%
2014 – 17.5%
2015 – 17.6%
2016 – 17.6%
2017 – 18.0%
2018 – 18.1% (again, above the 18.06% 50-year average)
2019 – 18.2%
2020 – 18.3%
2021 – 18.4%
Moreover, while the CBO assumes in the Alternate Fiscal Scenario further tax-rate cuts are made to keep revenues at 18.4% GDP, The Heritage Foundation does not. They estimate that keeping the Bush tax rates and implementing an AMT fix would put the tax burden above 18% GDP by 2013, and above 20.6% GDP between 2030 and 2035.
To paraphrase the campaign of the last Democrat President, “It’s the spending, stupid!”
Revisions/extensions (6:28 pm 7/31/2011) - Jimmie Bise reminded me that, in 1944, the federal government took in 20.9% of GDP.
Loading ...
Tax increases are guaranteed if this bill passes. The baseline has the bush tax cuts expiring. Any attempt to reinstate them will be viewed as “new spending” or an increase in the shortfall which would require something in return…this debate should always have been about the amount of real spending…whether discussed that way or not, that is the issue.
I have no problem with 20%+ tax revenues as long as the increase in tax revenues is primarily generated from the segment of society who have benefitted disproportionally from the financialization and deregulation of the American economy over the past 30 years. Doing so would have have little effect on growth and employment.
You mean the “poor”? After all, the bottom third of wage-earners have a net negative total federal tax liability, and the bottom half have a net negative income tax liability.
Shit Steve, sounds like they could use some real wage growth. Maybe you could put in a good word with the “job creators”.
They’re not taking my calls either :-)
[...] address taxes, I’ve got bad news for everybody (or at least everybody who doesn’t think a non-WWII record level of revenues as a percentage of GDP in 2021 is a bad idea) on that front. Any attempt to either extend any part of the Bush tax rates beyond [...]
[...] address taxes, I’ve got bad news for everybody (or at least everybody who doesn’t think a non-WWII record level of revenues as a percentage of GDP in 2021 is a bad idea) on that front. Any attempt to either extend any part of the Bush tax rates beyond [...]