Tuesday, September 17, 2013
$2,472,542,000,000: Record Taxation Through August; Deficit Still $755B
Mostly out of paradigm fiscal reporting at CNS News on the Treasury reporting all time high tax receipts through the first 11 months of this fiscal year.
There is an interesting chart at the link which tracks current year tax receipts from 1998 through the present.
Tax receipts in 1998 are listed as about $1.5T and this year, they are at about $2.5T so we can see taxes are running at about a $1T annual rate higher this year than 15 years ago.
As "government spends first, and then collects the taxes", correspondingly the Treasury is reporting their Federal "outlays" in excess of $3.2T for this year and a review of "outlays" in 1998 indicates "outlays" that year of $1.65T.
So we can see that this year in FY 2013, federal tax receipts exceed 1998 levels of "outlays" by almost $1T which would of course be impossible if Federal "outlays" did not rise by well over this $1T difference over that same period of time.
On a side note, we can see that federal outlays have risen from $1.65T in 1998 to over $3.2T this year which is about a double; it is interesting to note that S&P 500 earnings over this same period have about doubled also.... gee, I wonder where the S&P firms "get the money from" to support this type of sales and earnings increase?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The projection for the end of the month at the current daily rate of spending and given another two Social Security payments (on the 18th and the 25th) is around $290 billion. That would put total spending for the fiscal year at $4.19 trillion, which would be up $13 billion from last year, sequester and all.
Spending is down significantly from the 2009 high when it hit $4.59 trillion. So the decline from that peak to the level where it is now has been roughly $400 billion.
Total Federal government revenues in 2009 were $2.77 trillion. This fiscal year will close with Federal revenues at $3.3 trillion. That means revenues have increased by over $500 billion in the last four years.
Now add up the spending decline and the revenue haul and you have a net gain to the government (and income loss to the private sector) of $900 billion in the past four years. In other words, the entire stimulus has been removed and then some.
Well Mike you called it in your famous post here on how all of that 2009 spending was what in reality was going to get Obama re-elected...
I think if they would have just sustained that 2009 level of spending with not even any increases we would today have millions more employed and the S&Ps would be above 2500...
Instead they have taken out 400b per year and have it flat-lined at around this $4.15T level for like going on 3 years now and next year looks like more of the same (assuming GOP crazies cohort dont get their way...)
They have me hoping for interest rate increases next year as that looks like the only way we are going to get any increase in federal spending for next year...
The Fed people will think they will "tighten" and we'll end up really taking off via interest income...
It continues to look as though none of these people know what the hell is even going on...
"Keep seat belts fastened!"...
rsp,
"government spends first, and then collects the taxes"
Yes.
"So we can see that this year in FY 2013, federal tax receipts exceed 1998 levels of "outlays" by almost $1T ***which would of course be impossible if Federal "outlays" did not rise by well over this $1T difference over that same period of time.***" [emphasis mine]
NO NO NO NO NO!
The money supply was not zero before 1998. There was ALREADY money in circulation and available to be taxed, so the logic here is totally null and void.
The only way that rise in receipts would be impossible is if the entire $ money supply- bank credit + federal debt- was LESS in 1998 than that $1T difference. Pretty sure it wasn't.
Actually, to be really technical, it would be impossible if the SUM of the pre-existing money supply in 1998 and the ensuing deficits for the period in question were smaller than that $1T...less the trade deficits for that period, of course ;)
knife,
The fed govt doesnt tax "money available to be taxed", it taxes income/wages/tips/salaries which are flows... Federal net spending is the leading flow of USD NFA into the non-govt sector and creates incomes which are then taxed...
Mind your stock-flow consistency...
So called "money supply" measures are stock measures of "money" and are not taxed...
And even so, if so-called "money supply" measures were non-zero in 1998, where did these USD balances come from in the first place? Yes that's right, the government...
rsp,
Matt-
I am absolutely minding my stock-flow consistency.
Your claim seemed to be that the Federal government could *only* have taxed as much as it did during the period in question if it had spent more than that amount during the same period.
Presumably, this would be because the money didn't exist to be taxed until the government spent it. But you made a temporal error, in forgetting that the government had already spent many trillions of dollar into existence *before* 1998, meaning that, *assuming it circulated as income*, there is no reason to claim that the given amount of receipts collected would be impossible unless spending for the same period had been greater. It's just not true.
Government surplus is a deficit in real economy
Government deficit is a surplus in real economy
ok I guess people could have 'spent savings' that had accrued before 1998 in order to create tax liabilities that would have been paid out of those intra-non-govt sector spending flows, but lets face it, savings desires are never zero.... a goodly part of humanity just "saves" as a rule... granted not all... and many are profligate...
so I see your point and agree with your math that it may have been "mathematically possible" but I dont think at all probable as we have run a huge deficit since 1998 which is the ex-post record of those savings desires...
If what you are saying is in effect that "if nobody saves in a given year then receipts can exceed outlays" then I guess I agree with you but again that just does not seem realistic to me... we have to accommodate the savers among us..
I see your point and maybe should qualify my statement in the post that it is "impossible" as rather "humanly impossible"...
rsp,
Another simple one
The USA does not borrow in other currencies
Most Americans have never seen a Chinese yuan renmibi, but they are told every day the USA is underwritten by the Yuan.
Banker conspiracy???
Can anyone here with access to Bloomberg give me an indication on US sovereign 5-year CDS? If possible I also need a chart to see history going back 6-months, a year or more.
Thanx-in-advance.
Matt Franko-
You said,
"So we can see that this year in FY 2013, federal tax receipts exceed 1998 levels of "outlays" by almost $1T which would of course be impossible if Federal "outlays" did not rise by well over this $1T difference over that same period of time."
What you seem to be saying here is that 2013 receipts could NOT exist at their current level UNLESS the Federal government had spent at least that much since 1998. Your analysis implicitly suggests that the dollar never existed before 1998, and that the supply of dollars circulating (and taxable) before that period was zero.
How else can it be interpreted? What do the outlays during the specific period of 1998-2013 have to do with 2013 receipts? Why not go back to 1976 and make the same claim? Why is 1998 special here? (hint: it's not)
What you should be saying is that the maximum amount of receipts possible for the current period is some large portion of the existing supply of dollars circulating. It has nothing to do specifically with 1998; you've picked a totally arbitrary year, which renders your 'impossible' claim quite meaningless.
If you want to apply the 'spend first, then tax' logic, you MUST take it ALL THE WAY back to the very beginning. If you don't, the analysis means and says NOTHING of any importance.
Post a Comment