Indon
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 19
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Get an external source that actually shows up.I'll accept your concession on that point now. Effective tax rates remained the same.
Since most federal reciepts are on payroll and income taxes, yes, the federal government does tax itself. But that was a clever try.You know what happened in 2009? Government spending as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed. Government doesn't tax itself, so of course revenue/GDP would fall.
The content of the Wikipedia article. Since you apparently do not agree with the Heritage Foundation's frankly silly explanation of the reduction, it is irrelevant.What are you talking about?
Are you arguing that countries that spend more then increase this ratio? Because that's:And guess what causes the difference. Are those countries spending more as a percentage of GDP? Think that has an effect on the ratio? Either way, raising taxes to balance the budget is a horrible idea. We want growth. Higher taxes suck away capital for investment and decrease growth. There is no way around that fact.
-The opposite of the argument you made earlier in your very same post. Admittedly, the argument is wrong, so I could believe this one.
-However, if higher spending artificially inflates this metric, it means that, because we have had high spending for decades and extremely high spending of late so our tax by GDP metric would have been overinflated, the US government is recieving taxes at an absurdly low rate compared to what we should be.
Never said in the article; you are making things up.Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC
ALL FOUR hits to ss are in order if the entitlement is to SURVIVE for future generations
Please stop fabricating claims for your arguments.
Also, please try to actually read sources so that you understand what you are talking about.
TheProf, I get the distinct impression that you are completely uninterested in actually holding a discussion in good faith. Your arguments are disjointed and it doesn't look like you read either my citations, or even your own. You seem more interested in making silly, Fox-style talking points than making any meaningful discussion.
Except there is a very real multiplier based on what percentage of the money is saved versus spent each time it goes through the cycle.:lol: yes, so long as you can plug in whatever multiplier you like, gosh, the model always works!
20 bucks isn't going to get spent more than a few times before someone saves it - likely as an investment - and it stops moving through the economy in liquid form.