1. nope its true. Debt was 300%/GDP 2. you were talking about tax evasion, not about tax evasion code. the tax evasion data is not exist. The tax evasion code like I said you can measure. 3. if you call ppl whores you are out of arguments. you sir, have just been served
I think that using a constant means of computing it, the actual GDP has been decreasing steadily from about 1986, whereas using the bureau statistics you would get the impression that the GDP has been almost constant (on average) over the period 1986-2011, dropping only a little. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data Wouldn't a constant revenue of 19% of GDP computed by the Bureau's method, which gives a higher GDP, suggest that nominal tax revenue has been rising over that period, relative to the real GDP computed by the 1980 formula? I would think so. If that's true I'd like to suggest that the increase in nominal tax revenue has not been caused by tax rate decreases but instead by increases in government spending over that same period. When the inflation rate and GDP calculation methods are being dickered with as well as tax rates, it is beyond my weak, non-economist brain to figure out much of anything. But logically to me it does seem far more likely that any nominal increases in tax revenue since 1986 have been the result of increased Government spending, which I think we all agree raises nominal tax revenues in the absence of an equivalent offsetting reduction in tax rates. We are bombarded from one side of the political spectrum with the constant mantra that higher tax rates will destroy jobs and lead to lower productivity, but i'm having a very hard time believing it in light of the empirical evidence. I think it takes a giant leap of blind faith to believe "Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship." Don't get me wrong though, I love low taxes. I just don't believe that minor changes in tax rate have much at all to do with "discouraging entrepreneurship." I tend to think that a modest increase in the upper marginal tax rate, as has been proposed, might be quite helpful at this juncture in reducing future inflation. I think we all could agree though that what is sorely needed is measured and careful fiscal reform to bring spending in line with revenues. But this is a very difficult time to be cutting -- a time when the private sector is leveraging down, and therefore for stability, the public sector needs to leverage up some. We have boxed ourselves into a corner by getting involved in too many unproductive and expensive wars we could not afford and then closing our eyes while Wall Street and the banking and mortgage industries ran roughshod over the second most important segment of the economy --well, that's if you ignore the porn industry.
" But this is a very difficult time to be cutting -- a time when the private sector is leveraging down, and therefore for stability, the public sector needs to leverage up some." the downward part of the economic cycle needs to complete itself or the collapse will be much larger in the future. we need to washout the excess debt created since the 2nd world war. the government sector is already to large. as an aside it is quite obvious that you have been influenced by left wing professors who don't believe that the US has enemies.
A "post whore" is a common internet term. Anway, I'm done. Bludgeoning trolls is like shooting fish in a barrell.
you're making sense. I also feel changing tax rates from 10 to 11 or from 33 to 32 doesn't do much. That probably because GDP is a function of credit and it doesnt matter if credit is in the hands of a person or the government. it simply gets added to the GDP when spent. ofcourse in the hands of a person the credit can be not spent. and in the hands of the government the credit can be inëfficiently spent. a bigger problem is the debt bubble, that leads to a depression. you can argue the lower tax on the rich since the 1980 fueled partly the ponzi, because the government highered spending in unison. Does that make sense to a keynesian?
First of all, the USA Is Not a Empire and Is not a Democracy.. Is a Law State.. get your fact straight! And yes.. after 40 or 50 years of economic success, the "Bubble burst" is so normal in a free society. In fact, is during those contraction were a new segment of the society becomes rich ... That's a Fact!.. That's the beauty of capitalism.. everybody can makes money under any circustance.. That's whats make the US a superb country.. Every time there's a crisis, they come back better than ever.. You Know why? Because of their system, they the have the ability to renew their social clases, time after time.. Here in Europe in the 21 century, we still have Kings and Princess and Czars and feudalism!!! what a joke!.. Can you Imagine a Black, Lazy marxist muslim having the chance to run germany or France or Spain?? Only in America! .. In socialisms, there's never a fucking bubble in the first place.. Do you think internet and computers and microship were "Boombed" to "help" the world or to create personals wealth??... BTW: what kind of bubble are you talking about in the 19 century?? are you kidding me??
This is one of the beauties of corporatism. to get away with murder. Some laws dont apply to some people or entities because they are too important. or TBTF