Republican Nomination for President

Who would you vote for to run for President from the Republican Party?

  • Total voters
    0
#1,051
#1,051
milohimself said:
It does, depending on how its done. You're right insofar as simply jacking up marginal rates.
Click to expand...

No matter how they shape tax policy it seems tax revenue stays at 18% of GDP. They can do things to cause small short-term spikes, but the economy adjusts and it returns to 18% of GDP. This game has been going on for 50 + years.
 
#1,052
#1,052
nbakerld said:
No matter how they shape tax policy it seems tax revenue stays at 18% of GDP. They can do things to cause small short-term spikes, but the economy adjusts and it returns to 18% of GDP. This game has been going on for 50 + years.
Click to expand...

Reading a good book by Bruce Bartlett right now, and looking at a range of comparisons between tax revenue as a share of GDP and growth, and the US average revenue to GDP% between 1979 and 2010 is 26%.

Throughout all the 16 countries examined on this table I'm looking at, over real growth in GDP, tax/GDP ranges anywhere from 22-47%.
 
#1,053
#1,053
I'm only about a third of the way in, and this reading is straight-forward and incredibly robust in citations, and seems to be busting quite a few things I read here regularly.
 
#1,054
#1,054
It seems we have contradictory data:

nick-vero-Fig1.jpg
 
#1,057
#1,057
nbakerld said:
And here's the article

The 19 Percent Solution - Reason Magazine
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the article. I had heard before that federal revenue was normally equal to a certain percentage of the gdp, but I believe I just ignored that. I still have a hard time believing that. I wonder if the number has more to do with the small amounts that overall tax rates normally change. Since tax increases and decreases are normally made in small chunks, as opposed to tax rates goin from 10%-70% or something drastic like that, perhaps this makes tax revenue to gdp appear more static than it is.

I could be wrong on that though.

I also like that they mentioned cuting the mortgage interest tax deduction. I never understood that, it is already cheaper to buy than rent, so why do I need another tax deduction?
 
#1,059
#1,059
Vol8188 said:
I never endorsed reckless spending either. Example: Why do we not pay for wars in this country? Why did we allow the Reagan administration to quadruple the national deficit during the cold war? Why did we allow the most recent Bush to start two wars while cutting taxes in both years? Why did Obama cut the freakin payroll tax?

Is it too much to ask that we don't cut taxes while our national debt is skyrocketing?

Or is it really that crazy of an ideal that we should raise taxes during a time of war?

Those idea's are the complete opposite of reckless spending.
Click to expand...

Great, another Reagan Bush rant.
 
#1,064
#1,064
A caller on Boortz just made the best point Ive heard in weeks. Screw the national polls. The red states will be red. The blue states will be blue. The whole GOP primary should be about who can win Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
 
#1,065
#1,065
GAVol said:
A caller on Boortz just made the best point Ive heard in weeks. Screw the national polls. The red states will be red. The blue states will be blue. The whole GOP primary should be about who can win Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Click to expand...

Neal is good times, mighty whitey!
 
#1,066
#1,066
milohimself said:
The table I'm looking at is from OECD.

Revenue Statistics - Comparative tables

The section was titled "Countries with low tax/GDP rations don't necessarily grow faster than those with high tax/GDP ratios"
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me. Growth is mostly spurred by innovation. A country that contributes no innovations will still grow because they ride the coattails of innovative countries. Microsoft Office doesn't just make American businesses more efficient. The world benefits from it.
 
#1,067
#1,067
Also, GDP growth is not very useful for understanding what's going on in an economy. A government that spends a lot is improving GDP figures, but it's not real growth, it's parasitic growth. A government that borrows to spend beyond its means is not growing the economy, but for some reason that's how people tend to interpret GDP figures.
 
#1,068
#1,068
nbakerld said:
Also, GDP growth is not very useful for understanding what's going on in an economy. A government that spends a lot is improving GDP figures, but it's not real growth, it's parasitic growth. A government that borrows to spend beyond its means is not growing the economy, but for some reason that's how people tend to interpret GDP figures.
Click to expand...

Kinda like our growth during the 1980's.
 
#1,070
#1,070
OrangeEmpire said:
Great, another Reagan Bush rant.
Click to expand...

I like how I mention things I don't like about 3 of the 5 most recent presidents, and all you can do is cry about the fact that 2 of the 3 were republican.

Since 60 percent of the last 5 presidents were Republican, is it so crazy that I picked 2 Republican presidential policies that I didn't like and only one Democrat?

If your not going to add anything to the conversation, and instead simply bash me because I don't consider any of the last 3 republican presidents to be "fiscally conservative" or believers in "small government", then STFU.
 
#1,071
#1,071
VolsNSkinsFan said:
The S&P500 trippled in value and home values doubled during the 80s. Was that growth "fake"?
Click to expand...

The national debt quadrupled during a twelve year span...4:3 you tell me.

Also, anytime the market triples during one decade, I would be a bit suspicious of how real that growth is. I read the Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham last month, and I believe he said that over the entire history of the market it averaged 5-6% annual growth.

So 1.06^10 should lead to about an 80 percent increase over any average decade. Meaning that if the market triples during a decade, I would assume everything to be insanely overbought and crisis to be ahead. In the case of the 1980's boom, the crisis was the S&L crisis.
 
Last edited:
#1,072
#1,072
VolsNSkinsFan said:
The S&P500 trippled in value and home values doubled during the 80s. Was that growth "fake"?
Click to expand...

A lot of it, yeah. It was a time of easy credit which distorts everything. So while things were booming we were creating a bubble because of the artificial growth. Make no mistake, there was a lot of real growth, too.
 
#1,073
#1,073
Vol8188 said:
The national debt quadrupled during a twelve year span...4:3 you tell me.

Also, anytime the market triples during one decade, I would be a bit suspicious of how real that growth is. I read the Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham last month, and I believe he said that over the entire history of the market it averaged 5-6% annual growth.

So 1.06^10 should lead to about an 80 percent increase over any average decade. Meaning that if the market triples during a decade, I would assume everything to be insanely overbought and crisis to be ahead. In the case of the 1980's boom, the crisis was the S&L crisis.
Click to expand...

I haven't picked up that book since I bought it. I guess I should move it next to the crapper where all of my reading happens.
 
#1,074
#1,074
Weezy said:
I haven't picked up that book since I bought it. I guess I should move it next to the crapper where all of my reading happens.
Click to expand...

I really enjoyed it. I'm not an economics major and just started investing two years ago, so I had to re-read a few chapters, but it is excellent.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top