The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)

[Come On You Irons]

There. Resident WHO political commentators and gurus can knock yourselves out in here and conduct your endless bickering. All other threads will be locked.

[goose]

Very simply for you: 

• The US collects about $5 trillion a year in taxes
  • That’s only ~17–18% of GDP
• Because taxes are ~18% of GDP:
  • 1% extra GDP growth only raises tax revenue by ~0.18% of GDP
  • That’s about $55bn per year on today’s economy
• To cover $450bn a year in lost revenue:
  • You’d need ~8–9% EXTRA GDP growth every single year
  • On top of normal growth
• That means total growth of ~9–10% per year

 

[goose]

It’s not an exact science numbnuts. There are bulls and bears that’s what makes a market, some economists that are bearish some economists that are bullish. Some from either side have their algorithms. You and your propagandists are the Bears. That’s all it is.

It’s no inside secret and certainly not something you’d bet your house on.

Not an exact science but not something you get wrong by $300bn.
Like I said, you’d need growth which is historically unprecedented to cover the loss of tax revenues. To the point where it’s completely unthinkable and unimaginable.

So yes I’d bet my house on something that has less than 1% of happening.

You daft cսnt $300 billion is 1% of our $30 Trillion GDP.

“need growth that is unprecedented” what a cսnt’

GO away you Div!

No wonder you failed GCSE business studies.

Even if GDP growth accelerated from ~2 % to ~3–4 % for many years, it still wouldn’t generate enough additional revenue to cover the full multi-trillion-dollar cost of the cuts. 
You’d need additional GDP growth of ~7–8 percentage points above baseline every year — sustained over a decade — purely to generate enough extra revenue to match the revenue loss.

[violator]

Burnham blocked from standing.
Labour obliterated in May elections & Farage on his way to no.10
Unbelievable o.g by Starmer & his stooges

Apart from the elections he cancelled out of fear. 

[Nutsin]

 

The tax cuts are $500bn a year and they’ve said it’ll add $300bn to the debt.
There is no real world scenario that pays for those tax cuts.

You can play dumb all you like, but this really is obvious stuff.




 

It’s not an exact science numbnuts. There are bulls and bears that’s what makes a market, some economists that are bearish some economists that are bullish. Some from either side have their algorithms. You and your propagandists are the Bears. That’s all it is.

It’s no inside secret and certainly not something you’d bet your house on.

Not an exact science but not something you get wrong by $300bn.
Like I said, you’d need growth which is historically unprecedented to cover the loss of tax revenues. To the point where it’s completely unthinkable and unimaginable.

So yes I’d bet my house on something that has less than 1% of happening.

You daft cսnt $300 billion is 1% of our $30 Trillion GDP.

“need growth that is unprecedented” what a cսnt’

GO away you Div!

[THUNDERCLINT]

Burnham blocked from standing.
Labour obliterated in May elections & Farage on his way to no.10
Unbelievable o.g by Starmer & his stooges

Yep, kweer was 100% correct when he said his father made tools.

Done nothing but guarantee the party carves itself up into factions and eats itself alive.

By the time it's over and Nige is PM the Tories will be the opposition and the labour commies behind the ridiculous greens and the comical liberals.

Given the state of those 4 unless a credible centre left party emerges Reform will govern for a generation.

[Fauxstralian]

Burnham blocked from standing.
Labour obliterated in May elections & Farage on his way to no.10
Unbelievable o.g by Starmer & his stooges

[Fauxstralian]

NEC core group will decide today whether the best candidate Andy Burnham will be allowed to stand for Parliament 
If they block him to protect the abysmal Starmer get ready for a Reform government 

[goose]

Hopefully they get something right one day.

 

The tax cuts are $500bn a year and they’ve said it’ll add $300bn to the debt.
There is no real world scenario that pays for those tax cuts.

You can play dumb all you like, but this really is obvious stuff.



 

It’s not an exact science numbnuts. There are bulls and bears that’s what makes a market, some economists that are bearish some economists that are bullish. Some from either side have their algorithms. You and your propagandists are the Bears. That’s all it is.

It’s no inside secret and certainly not something you’d bet your house on.

Not an exact science but not something you get wrong by $300bn.
Like I said, you’d need growth which is historically unprecedented to cover the loss of tax revenues. To the point where it’s completely unthinkable and unimaginable.

So yes I’d bet my house on something that has less than 1% of happening.

[Nutsin]

 

 No. I’m just listening to dozens of the most highly experienced and respected economists around.
While you are using your GCSE in business studies (that you failed)

Hopefully they get something right one day.

 

The tax cuts are $500bn a year and they’ve said it’ll add $300bn to the debt.
There is no real world scenario that pays for those tax cuts.

You can play dumb all you like, but this really is obvious stuff.

 

It’s not an exact science numbnuts. There are bulls and bears that’s what makes a market, some economists that are bearish some economists that are bullish. Some from either side have their algorithms. You and your propagandists are the Bears. That’s all it is.

It’s no inside secret and certainly not something you’d bet your house on.

[goose]

Just too stupid to take seriously. Let’s see what happens.

cսnt thinks he’s got a crystal ball ffs!

 

 No. I’m just listening to dozens of the most highly experienced and respected economists around.
While you are using your GCSE in business studies (that you failed)

Hopefully they get something right one day.

 

The tax cuts are $500bn a year and they’ve said it’ll add $300bn to the debt.
There is no real world scenario that pays for those tax cuts.

You can play dumb all you like, but this really is obvious stuff.
 

[Nutsin]

Keep reaching son. 
Like I said before, to cover the reduction of tax revenues you need growth way ahead of anything ever recorded.
£300bn on the national debt, every year.


Have a sit down and think that one through.

Just too stupid to take seriously. Let’s see what happens.

cսnt thinks he’s got a crystal ball ffs!

 

 No. I’m just listening to dozens of the most highly experienced and respected economists around.
While you are using your GCSE in business studies (that you failed)

Hopefully they get something right one day.

[goose]

So they are not using the Gov’t job numbers in their algorithims? Are you sure? Where do they get their job numbers from then? I mean you can’t ignore jobs in any forecast.

And do they all have exactly the same number?

Keep reaching son. 
Like I said before, to cover the reduction of tax revenues you need growth way ahead of anything ever recorded.
£300bn on the national debt, every year.


Have a sit down and think that one through.

Just too stupid to take seriously. Let’s see what happens.

cսnt thinks he’s got a crystal ball ffs!

 

 

 No. I’m just listening to dozens of the most highly experienced and respected economists around.
While you are using your GCSE in business studies (that you failed)

[Nutsin]

Goose do me a favour mate. Can you give your crystal ball a little rub, let me know what next weeks results are gonna be? Much obliged!

[Nutsin]

You’re getting your government departments confused son.

btw, we’re not talking about one source here. Multiple different sources said the same things.

So they are not using the Gov’t job numbers in their algorithims? Are you sure? Where do they get their job numbers from then? I mean you can’t ignore jobs in any forecast.

And do they all have exactly the same number?

Keep reaching son. 
Like I said before, to cover the reduction of tax revenues you need growth way ahead of anything ever recorded.
£300bn on the national debt, every year.


Have a sit down and think that one through.

Just too stupid to take seriously. Let’s see what happens.

cսnt thinks he’s got a crystal ball ffs!

[goose]

Yeah we’ve seen just how good they are. They can’t even get close to the job numbers. That’s why Trump fired the woman in charge.

You really are stupid’

You’re getting your government departments confused son.

btw, we’re not talking about one source here. Multiple different sources said the same things.

So they are not using the Gov’t job numbers in their algorithims? Are you sure? Where do they get their job numbers from then? I mean you can’t ignore jobs in any forecast.

And do they all have exactly the same number?

Keep reaching son. 
Like I said before, to cover the reduction of tax revenues you need growth way ahead of anything ever recorded.
£300bn on the national debt, every year.


Have a sit down and think that one through.

[Mr Anon]

Better late than never. For what it’s worth it was a cunty thing to say no doubt. Stupid too, nothing to be gained from it, no matter how it was meant.

 

 

good to hear you say, many people at the moment try to defend the indefensible 

[Nutsin]

Hahaha you’re so dense.
i wonder if they count tariff revenue  

We’re talking about the best economists around.

they predict it using a model with huge numbers of data points used to model the impact. This is literally their job, it’s not a few fellas with an excel and some post it notes

Yeah we’ve seen just how good they are. They can’t even get close to the job numbers. That’s why Trump fired the woman in charge.

You really are stupid’

You’re getting your government departments confused son.

btw, we’re not talking about one source here. Multiple different sources said the same things.

So they are not using the Gov’t job numbers in their algorithims? Are you sure? Where do they get their job numbers from then? I mean you can’t ignore jobs in any forecast.

And do they all have exactly the same number?

[goose]

Possibly. We’ll find out exactly what data they put in to their algorithm. See how thorough they were. A ton of variables no doubt. I wonder if they count Tarrif revenue in their numbers? Although fuck knows how you’d predict that.

Hahaha you’re so dense.
i wonder if they count tariff revenue  

We’re talking about the best economists around.

they predict it using a model with huge numbers of data points used to model the impact. This is literally their job, it’s not a few fellas with an excel and some post it notes

Yeah we’ve seen just how good they are. They can’t even get close to the job numbers. That’s why Trump fired the woman in charge.

You really are stupid’

You’re getting your government departments confused son.

btw, we’re not talking about one source here. Multiple different sources said the same things.

[Nutsin]

They’re not £300bn off.

Possibly. We’ll find out exactly what data they put in to their algorithm. See how thorough they were. A ton of variables no doubt. I wonder if they count Tarrif revenue in their numbers? Although fuck knows how you’d predict that.

Hahaha you’re so dense.
i wonder if they count tariff revenue  

We’re talking about the best economists around.

they predict it using a model with huge numbers of data points used to model the impact. This is literally their job, it’s not a few fellas with an excel and some post it notes

Yeah we’ve seen just how good they are. They can’t even get close to the job numbers. That’s why Trump fired the woman in charge.

You really are stupid’

[Nutsin]

Better late than never. For what it’s worth it was a cunty thing to say no doubt. Stupid too, nothing to be gained from it, no matter how it was meant.

[goose]

out of curiosity how accurate do you think these models are? 
And are they the same models that were telling you we were heading for Stagflation ?

They’re not £300bn off.

Possibly. We’ll find out exactly what data they put in to their algorithm. See how thorough they were. A ton of variables no doubt. I wonder if they count Tarrif revenue in their numbers? Although fuck knows how you’d predict that.

Hahaha you’re so dense.
i wonder if they count tariff revenue  

We’re talking about the best economists around.

they predict it using a model with huge numbers of data points used to model the impact. This is literally their job, it’s not a few fellas with an excel and some post it notes

[Nutsin]

You think it’s an ‘opinion’???  

it’s the output of the most advanced technical economic models. 

out of curiosity how accurate do you think these models are? 
And are they the same models that were telling you we were heading for Stagflation ?

They’re not £300bn off.

Possibly. We’ll find out exactly what data they put in to their algorithm. See how thorough they were. A ton of variables no doubt. I wonder if they count Tarrif revenue in their numbers? Although fuck knows how you’d predict that.

[goose]

How has it been proven? It’s January ffs! This is their opinion, forecasts. Just like Stagflation and Inflation and all the others. Let’s see how much growth we get first and how much tax revenues that brings. You really have no idea. Your lack of understanding is unreal!

You think it’s an ‘opinion’???  

it’s the output of the most advanced technical economic models. 

out of curiosity how accurate do you think these models are? 
And are they the same models that were telling you we were heading for Stagflation ?

They’re not £300bn off.

[Nutsin]

It’s been proven that the cost of the growth projected is far outweighed by the loss of tax revenue. $300 odd billion every year.
You were pointed to multiple well respected sources and your own congressional committee all saying the same thing.

you can shout and avoid and throw insults around but these people know what they’re talking about.

How has it been proven? It’s January ffs! This is their opinion, forecasts. Just like Stagflation and Inflation and all the others. Let’s see how much growth we get first and how much tax revenues that brings. You really have no idea. Your lack of understanding is unreal!

You think it’s an ‘opinion’???  

it’s the output of the most advanced technical economic models. 

out of curiosity how accurate do you think these models are? 
And are they the same models that were telling you we were heading for Stagflation ?

[goose]

Just for your tiny failed GCSE brain, to fully pay for the tax cuts you would need to far exceed any historically measured growth.