Gutknecht pushing national sales tax

OK. And the rate in the legislation is too low.

NRST is set currently @ 23%, established against Clinton administration tax base.

Total Effective Tax Rates by Level of Government Percent Net National Product(NNP) http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr129.pdf
Year	Federal	State	Total
1998	22.4%	10.4%	32.8%
1999	22.5%	10.4%	32.9%
2000	23.1%	10.4%	33.5%
2001	22.2%	10.5%	33.7%
2002 ¹	19.7%	10.2%	29.2%
2003 ²	18.5%	10.1%	28.6%
2004³	17.9%	10.0%	27.9%
Notes: Leap day is omitted to make dates comparable over time. Positive and negative percentages in parentheses after legislation indicate the first-year fiscal impact of the bill,measured as a percentage of NNP. Since depreciation is not available to pay taxes, GDP is an overstatement of spendable income for the purpose of measuring tax burdens. Depreciation is netted out of NNP. 1 Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 2 The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 3 Job Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 Sources: Office of Management and Budget; Internal Revenue Service; Congressional Research Service; National Bureau of Economic Research; Treasury Department; and Tax Foundation calculations.

You don't really think we are on the high side of the Laffer Curve, do you? What a laffer!

NIPA: GDP & Federal Receipts & Expenditures http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N
	2003 III	2003 IV	2004 I	2004 II
GDP	11,116.7	11,270.9	11,472.6	11,657.5
TaxReceipts	999.3	1,074.9	1,073.9	1,096.9
SS/Medicare	761.6	769.5	787.9	796.4

You are dillusional if you think cutting revenue will cut spending. Completely dillusional.

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
-- Voltaire

Increasing government revenues has never caused cuts in spending.

Don't you think deficits and the debt have negative effects on our economy?

Two words: CUT SPENDING

NIPA: GDP & Federal Receipts & Expenditures http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N
	2003 III	2003 IV	2004 I	2004 II
GDP:	11,116.7	11,270.9	11,472.6	11,657.5
TaxReceipts	999.3	1,074.9	1,073.9	1,096.9
Deficit:	-483.9	-422.6	-437.4	-428.0

Good point here. Maybe they could excempt those over 65 and the handicapped, Etc.

there is a lot to discuss to make this happen, but does sound good in theroy though.

NRST is set currently @ 23%, established against Clinton administration tax base.

And IT WAS TOO LOW!! 23% would be too low with current receipts!

NIPA: GDP & Federal Receipts & Expenditures

You obviously have no understanding of the theory Laffer was illustrating with his curve, otherwise you wouldn't have only shown data from after the tax cuts.

	2000	2000	2000	2000	2001	2001	2001	2001	2002	2002	2002	2002	2003	2003	2003	2003	2004	2004
	I	II	III	IV	I	II	III	IV	I	II	III	IV	I	II	III	IV	I	II
GDP	9,629	9,823	9,862	9,954	10,022	10,129	10,135	10,226	10,338	10,446	10,547	10,618	10,745	10,884	11,117	11,271	11,473	11,658
Tax Receipts	1,302	1,309	1,323	1,320	1,323	1,316	1,132	1,238	1,070	1,074	1,067	1,065	1,090	1,094	999	1,075	1,074	1,097
SS/Medicare	685	686	697	699	716	718	718	718	731	735	734	735	748	754	762	770	788	796

Increasing government revenues has never caused cuts in spending.

Maybe you can show me an example of when reducing revenues has cut spending.

Two words: CUT SPENDING

That didn't answer the question. Don't you think deficits and the debt have negative effects on our economy?

23% would be too low with current receipts!

A federal tax rate of 23% of the consumption base(NNP) is way too high, period.

23% is high on the laffer curve, and consequently knocks GDP growth to a standstill.

The primary track to 23% began with the '97 Clinton Tax increases (refer red zone). Once federal tax level reached 23% of nominal consumption base( NNP) Economic growth declined precipitously into recession mode.

That is pure highside Laffer and a clear case of what happens when excess federal taxation burdens down an economy.

The Bush revenue cuts 2001-2003 with stimulative deficit spending are now just now in the process of reversing that GDP growth decline induced by the tax burdens from the Clinton 2nd Term tax law changes.

Year	Federal Tax Rate %NNP	GDP Growth	Federal Surplus %GDP	GDP	Tax Revenue	Federal Expenditure	Federal Surplus
1986	19.7	5.75%	-5.14%	4,462.8	777.1	1,051.8	-229.6
1987*	20.7	7.41%	-3.94%	4,739.5	859.9	1,090.8	-186.9
1988	20.3	7.69%	-3.27%	5,103.8	919.8	1,132.8	-166.9
1989*	20.5	7.46%	-2.92%	5,484.4	1,021.8	1,206.4	-160.1
1990*	20.2	5.81%	-3.59%	5,803.1	1,042.9	1,301.5	-208.3
1991	20.2	5.70%	-4.09%	5,995.9	1,054.7	1,357.6	-245.3
1992	19.6	5.04%	-5.09%	6,337.7	1,102.2	1,481.3	-322.9
1993*	19.9	4.80%	-4.37%	6,657.4	1,177.0	1,526.1	-290.7
1994	20.4	5.94%	-3.13%	7,072.2	1,275.6	1,557.4	-221.4
1995	20.8	4.60%	-2.69%	7,397.7	1,364.3	1,620.7	-199.2
1996	21.3	5.66%	-1.89%	7,816.9	1,475.3	1,689.3	-147.8
1997*	21.8	6.23%	-0.57%	8,304.3	1,607.0	1,721.1	-47.4
1998	22.4	5.33%	0.55%	8,747.0	1,730.6	1,751.1	47.8
1999	22.5	5.96%	1.09%	9,268.4	1,847.3	1,818.7	101.3
2000	23.1	5.91%	1.93%	9,817.0	2005.3	1,892.6	189.4
2001*	22.2	3.17%	0.41%	10,128.0	1969.7	2,002.4	41.8
2002*	19.7	3.54%	-2.64%	10,487.0	1802.8	2,149.4	-276.8
2003*	18.5	4.92%	-3.70%	11,004.0	1822.5	2,306.6	-407.6

You obviously have no understanding of the theory Laffer was illustrating with his curve, otherwise you wouldn't have only shown data from after the tax cuts.

Obviously you have no understanding of cause, effect and momentum, as in cause then effect afterwards.
Check in again in a couple of years after Bush tax cuts are made permanent at 18% NNP and GDP growth stabalizes at its new equilibrium levels for the answer as to where we are on the laffer curve.

Two words: CUT SPENDING

That didn't answer the question.

It answers it perfectly.

Don't you think deficits and the debt have negative effects on our economy?

The numbers are above.

Cut Spending, any deficit and debt issues are resolved.

Unless spending is addressed directly and head on by repealing programs, then spending and govenment will continue grow as long as there are perpetual expectations of ever more revenue to come.

The primary track to 23% began with the '97 Clinton Tax increases (refer red zone). Once federal tax level reached 23% of nominal consumption base( NNP) Economic growth declined precipitously into recession mode.

What tax increase in 1997?

23% is high on the laffer curve, and consequently knocks GDP growth to a standstill.

Where did you get your GDP numbers? They don't look accurate.

Where did you get your GDP numbers? They don't look accurate.

Nevermind. You weren't using real numbers.

Obviously you have no understanding of cause, effect and momentum, as in cause then effect afterwards

How the hell can you tell effect if you don't show what happened before the cause?!?!? The effect when viewed with all the data is different than you were trying to show. You showed revenues increasing, which they did if you only go back a couple of years. If you look at the years before the tax cuts, revenues have fallen indicating we are probably on the low side of the Laffer Curve.

That is pure highside Laffer and a clear case of what happens when excess federal taxation burdens down an economy.

That is tech bubble bursting. Taxes aren't the only negative thing that can happen to an economy. Damn, you blame everything on the IRS.

It answers it perfectly.

It doesn't answer a GD thing. You're a fool if you think you can force spending cuts by cutting revenue. You'll just add to the debt and eventually kill our economy. Greenspan had something to say about this today.

Cut Spending, any deficit and debt issues are resolved.

Fine. Cut spending. If we could only get a Republican President and Congress...Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Nice plan you got there. Cut spending...jeez.

How the hell can you tell effect if you don't show what happened before the cause?!?!?

By looking at the prior data in the table it came from, and noting where the GDP fall occurred as the federal effective tax rate broke 23%NNP, three points higher than the post WWII nominal mean. In fact the break is so unusual that it cannot be set aside as just coincidental.

The effect when viewed with all the data is different than you were trying to show. You showed revenues increasing, which they did if you only go back a couple of years.

What was shown was the reversal of the GDP fall and rising revenues, as consequence of reduction of tax rates and deficit stimulus. An effect that occurs on the high side of the Laffer relation.

If you look at the years before the tax cuts, revenues have fallen indicating we are probably on the low side of the Laffer Curve.

Last significant tax rate cuts were in Reagan's term, revenues rose as a consequence of exceptional(7%+) resultant growth with effective federal tax rates stable at the post WWII 20%NNP. '90 high brackets were added back, GDP slowed. '97 high brackets increased as well as rising SS wage caps, where Federal effective tax rates started climbing.

That is tech bubble bursting. Taxes aren't the only negative thing that can happen to an economy. Damn, you blame everything on the IRS.

We had as significant a bubble back in '87 with negligible effect on GDP. Such overvaluation are not that uncommon and are transitory not persistant in healthy economies. Look again friend, The Tech bubble was a correlate effect of the same taxlaw that imposed a historical tax rate maxima climaxing in 2000 @23%NNP. A significant force in creating that bubble was the drive to create & try to shelter gain from taxation by holding unrealized capital gains.

You're a fool if you think you can force spending cuts by cutting revenue.

One encourages spending cuts by making sure the entire electorate participates in and perceives the cost of excess government.

As long as there is a large proportion of folks who believe someone else pays the freight, there will be a majority consitituency for spending and no ecd in site.

"It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
-- Walter Williams.

Making sure everyone perceives themselves as footing the bill is a function of going to an NRST.

Fine. Cut spending. If we could only get a Republican President and Congress...Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Nice plan you got there. Cut spending...jeez.

No other way smaller government and paydown of debt is going to occur.

One thing is for certain, it hasn't happened with the income tax system.