%@#%@ the unions!

[Tom Ace]

Yeah, those medical plans that are spelled out in the union contracts for current and retired employees don't factor into the cost of a car at all ....

Oh, they do, but since their pay and benefits aren't really any different from other car companies' pay and benefits that didn't get bailouts, they don't factor in enough to be a cause of the problems the companies had. I'll go ahead and post this again:

Myth No. 7: Their union workers are lazy and overpaid

Reality: Chrysler tied Toyota as the most productive automaker in North America this year, according to the Harbour Report on manufacturing, which measures the amount of work done per employee. Eight of the 10 most productive vehicle assembly plants in North America belong to Chrysler, Ford or GM.


The oft-cited $70-an-hour wage and benefit figure for UAW workers inaccurately adds benefits that millions of retirees get to the pay of current workers, but divides the total only by current employees. That's like assuming you get your parents' retirement and Social Security benefits in addition to your own income.


Hourly pay for assembly line workers tops out around $28; benefits add about $14. New hires at the Detroit Three get $14 an hour. There's no pension or health care when they retire, but benefits raise their total hourly compensation to $29 while they're working. UAW wages are now comparable with Toyota workers, according to a Free Press analysis.

From here.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Why do I have to spell this out so much for you? In the case of the bailout, the terms of the bailout should be that bonuses for CEOs should be eliminated. The CEO of a company not getting a bailout can make whatever he wants, as long as he pays the amount of taxes he should. What was so unclear about that?

It was very unclear .... probably because you are replying to more than one person. (see, i can give you the benefit of the doubt)

I have NOT been talking about officer bonuses for NON-BAILOUT companies. My comments about officer bonuses have all been for BAILOUT companies. And in that converstion, you said " My whole point is that if someone is making all that money, they should be contributing accordingly. If a CEO makes $20 million in a year, I'm fine with it. Just as long as he also contributes something like 40%."

Thus the confusion ....

 

[JimmyRayBob]

lunch break over .... back to work

 

[byteware]

Humans value extra property less. If I forced you to give up all food or your car, which would you choose? I'm hoping food, since that's much more valuable to a human than a car. The necessities, and the money that pays for them are much more valuable than a car or a second car or second house.

In your opinion. A person may value a car as much as you value food. You don't get to decide how much someone else values something. Especially for the purpose of justifying taking it away.

With that in mind, taking 12% from the first $25,000 you make is not the same as taking 12% from the 20th $25,000 you make. Taking 12% from the first $25,000 is not even the same as taking 25% of the 20th $25,000 you make. No one is saying to take your second car and give it to someone else. What I'm saying is that before you have your fourth car, let's make sure other people at least have the basics.

Exactly, you've decided how much the rich should value their property, and therefore it's ok to take that property away.

Are they what, contributing? You mean you didn't already realize that? Not surprising. The same articles that all talked about how they're not paying federal income taxes specified that they're mostly paying other taxes. Obviously there are some people in the country paying no taxes at all, but it's nowhere near that 47%. You should really try to get all the information, not just the stuff you want to hear.

So, no proof then... ok, that's all you had to say.

Ah, more misconceptions. It's funny that every time I come across someone with your opinions, they're always based on ignorance. You most certainly can live in poverty and not have any spare time. You can also live just above poverty and not have any spare time.

based in ignorance? I can work enough minimum wage jobs to put myself above the poverty line. Period. (I've actually done this prior to joining the Marines, so don't tell me it can't be done. Before I had marketable skills, I lived this way).

Maybe you should go look up the word "misleading".

I didn't think you could explain how it was misleading.

I know you don't like how it sounds when it's put that way, but I would prefer you to stop referring to it as misleading, if you can't actually determine what is misleading about it.

That's just your way of dismissing something you don't like.

You're not listening very well, then. And what facts are you giving me?

Basic math for one.

Obviously you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be misinterpretting what I say when you try to rephrase it.

How am I misinterpretting what you say? Clarify your statements.

No, it's an attribute assigned by humans as a whole. Ask any human which they would rather give up: food or their computer.

That's an absolutely idiotic statement that has no basis in fact.

I would give up food over my car, or my computer. Why? Because I use both of those to acquire food.

No, but an opinion based on logic and reason has much more worth to me than one that's not.

Let me rephrase... an opinion based in logic and reason that supports your opinion is worth more to you than one that's not.

Your opinion is not rooted in either logic or reason. It's rooted in your belief that rich people should shoulder the burden because they have more money.

Keep trying. One day you might succeed.

That doesn't even make sense as a response to what I posted.

I didn't say it did.

Now your mincing words. You most certainly have said here, that the fact that they value their property less (or more accurately YOU value their property less FOR them), means it should be taken from them in taxes.

Again, everyone has to give money to the government upon penalty of jail. It's not a helpful way to characterize things. That's why it's misleading.

Not being helpful, is not misleading. There is nothing inaccurate about what I've said. You just don't like the sound of it.

When did I say that was a justification for taking anything from them? And again, a conversation goes much better when you don't use intentionally misleading language. You're right that I don't have the right to someone else's property, but society has a right to what it needs to function well.

When did you say? You've been using it as justification that their taxes aren't high enough. Or, did you not realize that raising their taxes was taking their property away?

OK, you're really just wasting my time now. If you're not going to read all of the posts, then don't post about the ones you haven't read. I already explained how his claim was false more than once. All you have to do is pay attention.

Wasting your time? that's laughable.

Wow, you can't possibly actually think that, can you?

I haven't mischaracterized your stance in the slightest. You just don't like having it all summed up like that.

Again, it's better when you don't use silly language like "stealing".

I know... you prefer other words for taking something from someone involuntarily by force, but that's just semantics.

Also, you really need to stop with these misinterpretations like I don't think the rich should be rich.

I'm sorry, statements that being rich is a privilege that we allow them, that they have to pay for... makes it seem like you don't think the rich should be rich.

I don't really see how you think I'm misinterpreting anything.

I specifically said they're welcome to be rich.

As long as they support all of society practically alone...

First, the cut-off is $8,500, so your numbers would be $8,500 and $8,501.

Well, if you're going to be that way, the actual cut-off is $8,375.

And again, you can drop the "evil rich" nonsense. It only makes you look bad.

You know... you can't really talk about being rich the way you do, and still claim that you don't think they should be punished for being rich.

Jesus, you're too much. I'm guessing the company didn't make $15 billion, if they need a bailout.

This is another area where you are just ill informed.

Banks made Billions from some of their units. That just wasn't as much as their losses from their home mortgage units.

$15 Billion in profits, doesn't cover $20 Billion in losses.

See Banks and financial companies are divided up into these nice little units where everybody does the same thing within a unit.

The fact that one unit lost tens of Billions of dollars, doesn't mean that others didn't make Billions.

In fact, those BONUSES that were paid out, were paid to the OTHER units. Everyone responsible for the mess was already gone by the time the bonuses were paid, and the people left were the people that were making the banks money. The people that the companies couldn't afford to lose.

 

[byteware]

Yes, I don't like your misinterpretations, and I don't blame you guys for not liking them either. I do like how you pull out one part of it as if it's representative of the whole. Yes, some rich people leech off of the country. Do you deny that?

Yes, I do deny that.

Explain how being rich is leeching off of this country?

When it's above the amount needed for your basic needs. I consider it a privilege for me to live comfortably as I do.

So owning a car, instead of a motorcycle is a privilege. Owning a home is a privilege.

My whole point is that if someone is making all that money, they should be contributing accordingly. If a CEO makes $20 million in a year, I'm fine with it. Just as long as he also contributes something like 40%.

Making 5 times more... paying 21 times more in taxes... seems like they already are...

but wait, that's out of context that you have assigned values to their property... and want them to pay according to the values that YOU have assigned to THEIR property...

Sorry... could you write down the values of their property that you have assigned, so that we can all have the CONTEXT of the conversation...

That's a different story. Then the company would have to ask the workers. In that case you couldn't allow the owners of the company to decide on something that isn't their decision. But where we do disagree is that the labor contracts contributed to the problem. As I already posted more than once in this thread, it's a myth that union agreements have hurt the big car companies.

Yep... GM spending billions on workers that they had no use for, per the labor contracts, wasn't part of the problem.... I mean, over a decade, it's likely they spent nearly $100 Billion on these workers that they didn't need anymore, but that didn't contribute to their economic problems at all.

You are just being ridiculous.

 

[byteware]

When it's above the amount needed for your basic needs. I consider it a privilege for me to live comfortably as I do.

Yep, it's not a right to earn a living, if you are eating and have a place to live, then it's a privilege you have to pay the government for.

I can't say I'm surprised that you don't see how labor contracts caused a problem with GM....

well, if earning a paycheck is a privilege that the government grants you... I guess there's no reasoning with you.

 

[2003vstrom]

wow.. how uninformed

who are u? oh wait u must be commie

 

[Tom Ace]

In your opinion. A person may value a car as much as you value food. You don't get to decide how much someone else values something. Especially for the purpose of justifying taking it away.

A car is not as valuable to a human being as food is. If you just stop and think about it, the basics in life are much more valuable than the extras.

Exactly, you've decided how much the rich should value their property, and therefore it's ok to take that property away.

These inaccurate interpretations only hinder your comprehension of what I'm saying.

So, no proof then... ok, that's all you had to say.

Well, I didn't think you had any proof, but thank you for admitting it.

based in ignorance? I can work enough minimum wage jobs to put myself above the poverty line. Period. (I've actually done this prior to joining the Marines, so don't tell me it can't be done. Before I had marketable skills, I lived this way).

Sure, but what if you're not getting minimum wage? What if you have a child or two?

I didn't think you could explain how it was misleading.

I know you don't like how it sounds when it's put that way, but I would prefer you to stop referring to it as misleading, if you can't actually determine what is misleading about it.

That's just your way of dismissing something you don't like.

Still haven't looked up that word, huh? OK, just get back to me when you do.

Basic math for one.

Basic math isn't a fact, and you're not even using that. I was hoping for an example of an actual fact you've used.

How am I misinterpretting what you say? Clarify your statements.

At this point, you've made it clear it's a waste of time.

That's an absolutely idiotic statement that has no basis in fact.

I would give up food over my car, or my computer. Why? Because I use both of those to acquire food.

This is really just wasting my time now. You have to give up food or your car. You can't then get more food. You're giving it up. So, for the rest of your life, you can either have food or a car. Which one do you pick?

Let me rephrase... an opinion based in logic and reason that supports your opinion is worth more to you than one that's not.

That's true. Since I use logic and reason to form my opinions, usually an opinion using those two things will support mine, but in a more general sense I value opinions based on those things more than opinions not based on those things.

Your opinion is not rooted in either logic or reason. It's rooted in your belief that rich people should shoulder the burden because they have more money.

Almost. It's rooted in logic and reason in that I understand that when you have such a big disparity in wealth, the rich are going to have to shoulder a lot of the burden for the country financially.

Now your mincing words. You most certainly have said here, that the fact that they value their property less (or more accurately YOU value their property less FOR them), means it should be taken from them in taxes.

No, I haven't, and this is the main problem we're having. You misunderstand what I'm saying, and it's clear you do it on purpose. As I've explained ad nauseum, money that pays for a second car is not as valuable as money that pays for basic food. That's not my relative value or yours. It's how humans value things. And that fact only means that a progressive tax is a better way to go than a flat tax.

Not being helpful, is not misleading. There is nothing inaccurate about what I've said. You just don't like the sound of it.

That's not true. What's true is that it's misleading and unhelpful.

When did you say? You've been using it as justification that their taxes aren't high enough. Or, did you not realize that raising their taxes was taking their property away?

What I've said is that the more money you make, the higher your tax rate should be. That's based on the fact that higher increments of income are less valuable than lower increments.

Wasting your time? that's laughable.

Yes, wasting my time. When I clearly explain something to someone else, and you don't read it and then try to claim I didn't say it, you're wasting my time.

I haven't mischaracterized your stance in the slightest. You just don't like having it all summed up like that.

Saying it won't make it true.

I know... you prefer other words for taking something from someone involuntarily by force, but that's just semantics.

I do, considering other words are more productive and accurate, especially considering you only want to use those words in reference to doing it to rich people.

I'm sorry, statements that being rich is a privilege that we allow them, that they have to pay for... makes it seem like you don't think the rich should be rich.

I don't really see how you think I'm misinterpreting anything.

I don't really see how that makes it seem like I don't think the rich should be rich. The one statement doesn't in anyway lead to the other.

As long as they support all of society practically alone...

No, the top 1.5% don't support the rest of society alone. However, when you have such a large concentration of money in one small group with so little for everyone else, it only makes sense that that little group provides much, much more than the big group.

Well, if you're going to be that way, the actual cut-off is $8,375.

Not for 2010 or 2011. And way to just skip over the part where you were completely wrong. It's OK, your omission of that part of my post is enough. I just hope you finally learned something.

You know... you can't really talk about being rich the way you do, and still claim that you don't think they should be punished for being rich.

How do I talk about the rich? What have I said that would lead to the conclusion that I think they're evil? All I've said is that they should pay more in taxes. Sure, some of them are bad people, but some of every group are bad people. The rich aren't generally much different regarding those qualities from the other classes. Some are hard-working, some are not. Some are lazy; some are not. Some are selfish; others are not. Those things are true for every class; rich, poor and middle class.

And again, I don't think they should be punished for being rich. I don't see having them make $600,000 instead of $675,000 out of their $1 million is a punishment.

This is another area where you are just ill informed.

Banks made Billions from some of their units. That just wasn't as much as their losses from their home mortgage units.

$15 Billion in profits, doesn't cover $20 Billion in losses.

See Banks and financial companies are divided up into these nice little units where everybody does the same thing within a unit.

The fact that one unit lost tens of Billions of dollars, doesn't mean that others didn't make Billions.

In fact, those BONUSES that were paid out, were paid to the OTHER units. Everyone responsible for the mess was already gone by the time the bonuses were paid, and the people left were the people that were making the banks money. The people that the companies couldn't afford to lose.

OK, so as far as I can tell the bank still lost money, right? So, the head of the whole bank would be responsible for that, right? We're talking about the CEO here, which means he's responsible for the whole company.

 

[Tom Ace]

Yes, I do deny that.

So, just to be clear, you deny that some rich people leech off of the country. Is that correct?

Explain how being rich is leeching off of this country?

That's not what I said. What I said is some rich people leech off of the country. Basically that means they make money at the country's expense. Case in point, many of the Wall Streeters and bankers.

So owning a car, instead of a motorcycle is a privilege. Owning a home is a privilege.

Let's just stick to what I already said.

Making 5 times more... paying 21 times more in taxes... seems like they already are...

You should check your numbers. Having a top tax rate of 36% means he's not paying 40%. It would also be nice now that I've fully explained to you the problem with just using your shallow numbers more than once, if you would go ahead and stop using them.

but wait, that's out of context that you have assigned values to their property... and want them to pay according to the values that YOU have assigned to THEIR property...

Sorry... could you write down the values of their property that you have assigned, so that we can all have the CONTEXT of the conversation...

Sure, I already did. The more money you make, the less valuable it is. the money you use for the 2-week vacation to Europe staying in 5-star hotels is less valuable than the money you use to pay for your car, which is less valuable than the money you use to pay for your clothes, which is less valuable than the money you pay for your food. See how that works?

Yep... GM spending billions on workers that they had no use for, per the labor contracts, wasn't part of the problem.... I mean, over a decade, it's likely they spent nearly $100 Billion on these workers that they didn't need anymore, but that didn't contribute to their economic problems at all.

You are just being ridiculous.

Do you have a source for this claim?

 

[Tom Ace]

Yep, it's not a right to earn a living, if you are eating and have a place to live, then it's a privilege you have to pay the government for.

You do realize that goes specifically against what I said, right?

I can't say I'm surprised that you don't see how labor contracts caused a problem with GM....

And I can't say I'm surprised you don't understand that situation any better than you do our tax system.

well, if earning a paycheck is a privilege that the government grants you... I guess there's no reasoning with you.

And if all you're going to do is pretend your misinterpretations of my words are accurate, then I guess there's no reasoning with you.

 

[byteware]

A car is not as valuable to a human being as food is. If you just stop and think about it, the basics in life are much more valuable than the extras.

See, here is where you are wrong.

IF you take all the food from my house, me and my family will survive.

If you take my car and computer... my family will starve. Period.

You don't get to decide how other HUMANS value their property.

I understand you want this to be true... you NEED this to be true, in order to justify why it's ok for the rich to shoulder the entire tax burden for this society (very nearly).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This discussion is pointless. You've decided how much rich people value their property. Anyone who doesn't accept that as fact, or any of your other opinions as fact, are just refusing to face reality.

You don't want to listen to reason, that's fine... bowing out.

 

[Tom Ace]

See, here is where you are wrong.

IF you take all the food from my house, me and my family will survive.

If you take my car and computer... my family will starve. Period.

You don't get to decide how other HUMANS value their property.

I understand you want this to be true... you NEED this to be true, in order to justify why it's ok for the rich to shoulder the entire tax burden for this society (very nearly).

OK, this is very simple. You can have one of two things. You can either have food or you can have a car. If you choose the car, you can never have food again. You can't use the car to get more food. Which do you choose? This is just to show the different values we place on things.

Of course, you can look at it this way too. You use your car to make money so that you can buy food. That's why I include transportation in minimum costs to get by.

But the point is some things are more valuable than others. When someone only has one car, and needs it to get to work, that is much more valuable than someone else's second car that sits around except for a few nice days a year when it's used for a joyride.

This discussion is pointless. You've decided how much rich people value their property. Anyone who doesn't accept that as fact, or any of your other opinions as fact, are just refusing to face reality.

You don't want to listen to reason, that's fine... bowing out.

You are correct that the discussion is pointless, but it's mainly because you refuse to understand what I'm saying. I haven't decided how much rich people value their property. I've determined how much humans value different things. If you don't accept that food is more valuable to a human than anything else, then you are denying reality. Then you can move on to other things as I mentioned above. It's a fact that some things are just more valuable to a human than other things. Based on that, a progressive tax is the best option for an income tax.

And don't try to frame this as me being the one not listening to reason. If it makes you feel better, go right ahead, but you should at least realize it's not true.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I'm glad you are qualified to determine that if someone made the company 15 Billion dollars, that they don't deserve a bonus... and FYI, not all banks required bailouts.

Most banks in the US and British Isles acted terribly, can yyou deny that?
oh and Byteware, for christs sake look at the profits and where did they come from
Our banks behave with no regard for the people who they hurt... that needs to be changed

 

[Bob Maxey]

Hey Guys . . . I have some really important crap to spew about the unions. It will get lost in comments and talk about taxes and the evil rich. The brilliant ecconomists participating here will force my equally brilliant union comments into hiding by shear force of their lack of credable knowledge and innane commentary on taxes.

Start a new thread and vacate this one please. Moderators . . . tap, tap, tap, is this thing on?

Bob the Pretend Moderator

 

[Tom Ace]

Hey Guys . . . I have some really important crap to spew about the unions. It will get lost in comments and talk about taxes and the evil rich. The brilliant ecconomists participating here will force my equally brilliant union comments into hiding by shear force of their lack of credable knowledge and innane commentary on taxes.

Start a new thread and vacate this one please. Moderators . . . tap, tap, tap, is this thing on?

Bob the Pretend Moderator

Aw, did someone get upset? It's OK. It looks like the discussion that formed out of the original one is finished anyway. Post away about unions.

 

[ElasticNinja]

sometimes I think someone needs to make an AI for Byte and Bob to argue against

 

[cjr72]

It took me a while to find it but all this talk about the "rich paying their fair share" as though it will be some magic salve for the economy reminded me of an article I read that states that revenue as a percentage of GDP stays around 19% regardless of what the top marginal rate is. If true it seems to me focusing on ways to grow GDP and or cutting spending is the way to go in terms of our deficit problems.

W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com

 

[byteware]

Most banks in the US and British Isles acted terribly, can yyou deny that?

Some parts of those banks acted terribly, unless you want to discriminate secretaries and people who traded people's money in good faith, and did their best.

You can't lump everyone in with the bad.

oh and Byteware, for christs sake look at the profits and where did they come from

Ok, tell me where every unit of the banks made their profit... (I know you can't do that, because you haven't looked any further, than banks are bad, but still, try to answer THAT question).

Our banks behave with no regard for the people who they hurt... that needs to be changed

Some yes... and some no. Lumping all banking units together is like lumping all muslims together because some are terrorists.

 

[byteware]

sometimes I think someone needs to make an AI for Byte and Bob to argue against

Well, we could use some intelligence to argue against... Artificial or otherwise..


Sorry, I couldn't help it. My keyboard made me type it.

 

[Tom Ace]

It took me a while to find it but all this talk about the "rich paying their fair share" as though it will be some magic salve for the economy reminded me of an article I read that states that revenue as a percentage of GDP stays around 19% regardless of what the top marginal rate is. If true it seems to me focusing on ways to grow GDP and or cutting spending is the way to go in terms of our deficit problems.

W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com

It's an interesting idea, but I'd like to know where his numbers come from. From that site I found the site perotcharts.com. They have a chart with numbers from the CBO that have the taxes as percentage GDP fluctuating anywhere between 16% and 21%. The period of note is between 1992 and 2000. They go from just about 17.5% in 1992 to almost 21% in 2000. During that period taxes were raised and the economy did pretty well. The GDP in 1992 was about $8 trillion, and it was about $11 trillion in 2000. So, according to those numbers, the percentage of GDP went up and the GDP itself went up, all while taxes went up. Just as a comparison, the GDP in 2000 of $11 trillion went up to about $13 trillion in 2008, which of course is the period under the Bush tax cuts, and between 2000 and 2004 the taxes as percentage of GDP dropped from almost 21% to just over 16%.

 

[Tom Ace]

Some parts of those banks acted terribly, unless you want to discriminate secretaries and people who traded people's money in good faith, and did their best.

You can't lump everyone in with the bad.



Ok, tell me where every unit of the banks made their profit... (I know you can't do that, because you haven't looked any further, than banks are bad, but still, try to answer THAT question).



Some yes... and some no. Lumping all banking units together is like lumping all muslims together because some are terrorists.

You never responded to me when I addressed this. We're talking about the CEO of the whole bank. Whether or not some units in the bank did well doesn't matter in regards to his job performance. His job performance is based on how well the entire bank does as a whole.

 

[cjr72]

It's an interesting idea, but I'd like to know where his numbers come from. From that site I found the site perotcharts.com. They have a chart with numbers from the CBO that have the taxes as percentage GDP fluctuating anywhere between 16% and 21%. The period of note is between 1992 and 2000. They go from just about 17.5% in 1992 to almost 21% in 2000. During that period taxes were raised and the economy did pretty well. The GDP in 1992 was about $8 trillion, and it was about $11 trillion in 2000. So, according to those numbers, the percentage of GDP went up and the GDP itself went up, all while taxes went up. Just as a comparison, the GDP in 2000 of $11 trillion went up to about $13 trillion in 2008, which of course is the period under the Bush tax cuts, and between 2000 and 2004 the taxes as percentage of GDP dropped from almost 21% to just over 16%.

Well I did not characterize the article correctly when I said "revenue as a percentage of GDP stays around 19%". He's getting the 19% by averaging over the past six decades. So yes you can look at much shorter time spans and find periods where it is not at 19%.

 

[cipher6]

It's a fact that some things are just more valuable to a human than other things. Based on that, a progressive tax is the best option for an income tax.

Do you even know what your arguing about? Sometimes its paying their "fair share," and when you give numbers it seems your talk 26% vs 35%, but then you say it could be as much as 80%, and here your simply saying progressive is better?

Can we clearly define what exactly your arguing for? If its a specific rate for a specific group, state it and why. If its, the "rich" should pay their "fair share" can you define "rich" and "fair share" and explain why you think that rate is fair while the current rate is not>

I have no idea what this thread is about anymore.

 

[Tom Ace]

Well I did not characterize the article correctly when I said "revenue as a percentage of GDP stays around 19%". He's getting the 19% by averaging over the past six decades. So yes you can look at much shorter time spans and find periods where it is not at 19%.

Actually, that wasn't what I got from the article. It also wouldn't make much sense. The point he was making is that whether you lower or raise taxes, the revenue as percentage of GDP stays roughly the same. Averaging several decades isn't what you want to do for that claim. What you want to do is see specific periods when taxes were raised or lowered. The claim is that even if you raise taxes, the tax revenue as percentage of GDP still stays around 19%. According to the numbers I found, that's not the case.

 

[cjr72]

Actually, that wasn't what I got from the article. It also wouldn't make much sense. The point he was making is that whether you lower or raise taxes, the revenue as percentage of GDP stays roughly the same. Averaging several decades isn't what you want to do for that claim. What you want to do is see specific periods when taxes were raised or lowered. The claim is that even if you raise taxes, the tax revenue as percentage of GDP still stays around 19%. According to the numbers I found, that's not the case.

He pointed out that it will fluctuate "within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP." What is considered narrow I suppose is subjective but the example you give of 16 to 21 percent is only plus or minus 3 of the average over 60 years.