Why isn't government revenue increasing?
April 24th, 2012 at 7:33:56 AM
permalink
Let's leave government spending aside for a minute . The graph indicates that the GDP is increasing post recession at it's old pace after the unprecedented dip, but government revenue should be going up as well even with the current tax code.
Why isn't government revenue going up?
Fiscal Year - Revenue in $billions
2005 $2,154
2006 $2,407
2007 $2,568
2008 $2,524
2009 $2,105
2010 $2,163
2011 $2,303
2012 $2,469
Projected revenue for 2012 is only $62 billion higher than 2006, but the GDP has increased by more than 25 times that amount.
The massive increase in government spending since 9/11 gets most of the press time, but I am not sure why revenue is not keeping pace with GDP growth.
2002 $1,961
2003 $2,128
2004 $2,229
2005 $2,400
2006 $2,568
2007 $2,770
2008 $2,902
2009 $3,107
2010 $3,591
2011 $3,834
2012 $3,729
April 24th, 2012 at 8:00:41 AM
permalink
Let's start with the IDIOTIC decision to forgo 2% of the FICA (social security) tax. The report put out yesterday now says SS will be bankrupt 3 years sooner than predicted last year. Gee, I wonder why! Putting $20 a week in a guys pocket during an election year is pure Obama at his best. Who cares about 20 years from now when he'll be on the lecture circuit telling us how his successors ruined all the good things he did....
April 24th, 2012 at 8:13:29 AM
permalink
but putting $66,000 in the pocket of the top 1% is a good idea
because you sold the public on the idea that these people are "job creators"
when in fact most job creators are nowhere near the top 5% of income earners.
because you sold the public on the idea that these people are "job creators"
when in fact most job creators are nowhere near the top 5% of income earners.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
April 24th, 2012 at 8:20:18 AM
permalink
Quote: WongBobut putting $66,000 in the pocket of the top 1% is a good idea
because you sold the public on the idea that these people are "job creators"
when in fact most job creators are nowhere near the top 5% of income earners.
Yeah but once those jobs from the Reagan era tax breaks start to trickle down we will be all set.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
April 24th, 2012 at 8:32:13 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOLet's start with the IDIOTIC decision to forgo 2% of the FICA (social security) tax. The report put out yesterday now says SS will be bankrupt 3 years sooner than predicted last year. Gee, I wonder why! Putting $20 a week in a guys pocket during an election year is pure Obama at his best. Who cares about 20 years from now when he'll be on the lecture circuit telling us how his successors ruined all the good things he did....
Soopoo do you mean the extension of George Ws tax cut that was approved by a Republican controlled House?
Damn Obama must be good if he Jedi mind tricked the former president and the current house Republicans to vote for it twice.
isn't there a birth certificate you should be looking for?
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
April 24th, 2012 at 9:14:56 AM
permalink
Quote: Wavy70Yeah but once those jobs from the Reagan era tax breaks start to trickle down we will be all set.
Can we try trickle-up just once ??
April 24th, 2012 at 10:52:37 AM
permalink
People aren't paying their taxes.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
April 24th, 2012 at 11:45:26 AM
permalink
Quote: teddysPeople aren't paying their taxes.
Thank you for replying to the topic.
To repeat, there is a lot of discussion about spending, but very little about revenue (other than the Buffet rule). Logically, the $1.7 trillion increase in GDP from 2006 to 2011 should have produced more revenue, even without an increase in taxes.
April 24th, 2012 at 12:26:08 PM
permalink
People should be talking about the tax gap. Last time the government estimated it at $345 billion. That would completely eliminate that revenue gap you pointed out.Quote: pacomartinThank you for replying to the topic.
To repeat, there is a lot of discussion about spending, but very little about revenue (other than the Buffet rule). Logically, the $1.7 trillion increase in GDP from 2006 to 2011 should have produced more revenue, even without an increase in taxes.
The main problems are nonfiling, nonpayment, and underreporting of income. Tim Geithner admitted he did not pay self-employment tax for work he did for the World Bank last year. He blamed it on his tax software. I paid $92 in S.E.T. for writing I did for the Wizard's sites last year.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
April 24th, 2012 at 1:01:43 PM
permalink
Quote: Wavy70Soopoo do you mean the extension of George Ws tax cut that was approved by a Republican controlled House?
Damn Obama must be good if he Jedi mind tricked the former president and the current house Republicans to vote for it twice.
isn't there a birth certificate you should be looking for?
I am specifically talking about the cut from 7.15% to 5.15%, around a 25% decrease in the amount Americans are paying into the social security system. You can mention any other cuts you want, but these cuts were made AFTER those cuts, they were made ON TOP of those cuts. If someone forced Obama to answer this question, what would he say-- "Where is the money that used to come from the 7.15% now going to come from?" As far as the Bush tax 'cuts', yes, a man making a million a year now pays federal income taxes equal to 60 families making 50k per year, not 80 families. It is interesting how when it suits them they include FICA as a tax, and when it doesn't it is a 'contribution' to Social Security. All the silliness about Walton's secretary paying more in taxes than him is because they chose to count the FICA the same as federal income tax. The Democratic party's blather is so shallow and easy to see through.
April 24th, 2012 at 1:04:18 PM
permalink
the republicans do a little bit better i admit.Quote: SOOPOOThe Democratic party's blather is so shallow and easy to see through.
disguising biblical passages as public policy, disguising corporatism as patriotism, disguising social darwinism as compassion...
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
April 24th, 2012 at 1:07:24 PM
permalink
And I didn't even realize this was a partisan political rant thread. Paco, why didn't you start it in the free-speech forum?
April 24th, 2012 at 1:14:46 PM
permalink
Quote: DocAnd I didn't even realize this was a partisan political rant thread.
Any question of taxes is a partisan political fight. Any question of policy, even.
Me, I agree with Robert Heinlen: There may not be a candidate you want to vote for, but there's always one you want to vote against. Change that to "party" and it's just so.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
April 24th, 2012 at 2:12:06 PM
permalink
An increase in GDP doesn't have to equate to increase in tax revenue to the government. The increase in GDP is government spending and a decrease of imported goods in a down economy.
Of course we all know GDP= Consumption(this is basically good and service bought by consumers, NOT businesses) + Investments(this is consumption by companies, such as new equipment for a factory or the building of a new factory ect ect...NOT "savings" like buying stocks or bonds) + Government spending ( this is ONLY final goods or service. Entitlements such as welfare and SS, unemployment and substitutes toward businesses are NOT counted. Only "final goods" like roads or schools or a jet fighter or an aircraft carrier AND services, so government workers provide a service, their payroll is counted towards GDP and grants given for research since that research is creating utility) + Exports(goods or services) - Imports(goods or services)
So how this can happen is..... person "A" buys a 10k US Treasury bond(loaning the government money) and the government spends that money on a new bridge(stimulus) and that counts towards GDP. But if the the government doesn't need to borrow as much(run an increased deficit) then person "A" has no US treasury Bond to buy. So maybe he buys 10K worth of stock in Ford. The 10K is not guaranteed to make it back into the economy in a way that will be accounted for in GDP.
The biggest reason you can see an increase in GDP during a recession with no tax revenue increase is because of a decline of imports. Consumption on the whole is down, but since so much of US consumption is on imported goods that last part of the GDP equation (Exports - Imports) works to increase GDP because the US runs a trade deficit.
There is no magic behind it. GDP is just an imperfect way of measuring the economy and its growth or decline. But it's a better baseline than any other equation.
Of course we all know GDP= Consumption(this is basically good and service bought by consumers, NOT businesses) + Investments(this is consumption by companies, such as new equipment for a factory or the building of a new factory ect ect...NOT "savings" like buying stocks or bonds) + Government spending ( this is ONLY final goods or service. Entitlements such as welfare and SS, unemployment and substitutes toward businesses are NOT counted. Only "final goods" like roads or schools or a jet fighter or an aircraft carrier AND services, so government workers provide a service, their payroll is counted towards GDP and grants given for research since that research is creating utility) + Exports(goods or services) - Imports(goods or services)
So how this can happen is..... person "A" buys a 10k US Treasury bond(loaning the government money) and the government spends that money on a new bridge(stimulus) and that counts towards GDP. But if the the government doesn't need to borrow as much(run an increased deficit) then person "A" has no US treasury Bond to buy. So maybe he buys 10K worth of stock in Ford. The 10K is not guaranteed to make it back into the economy in a way that will be accounted for in GDP.
The biggest reason you can see an increase in GDP during a recession with no tax revenue increase is because of a decline of imports. Consumption on the whole is down, but since so much of US consumption is on imported goods that last part of the GDP equation (Exports - Imports) works to increase GDP because the US runs a trade deficit.
There is no magic behind it. GDP is just an imperfect way of measuring the economy and its growth or decline. But it's a better baseline than any other equation.
April 24th, 2012 at 2:55:13 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedAny question of taxes is a partisan political fight. Any question of policy, even.
Me, I agree with Robert Heinlen: There may not be a candidate you want to vote for, but there's always one you want to vote against. Change that to "party" and it's just so.
Agree. I'm no Mitt Romney fan. And despite being college classmates with BO I couldn't vote for him.
April 24th, 2012 at 4:44:52 PM
permalink
Quote: DocAnd I didn't even realize this was a partisan political rant thread. Paco, why didn't you start it in the free-speech forum?
Actually, I mean this as totally non-partisan. Covering part of the Bush administration and part of the Obama administration. I take it as an assumption that if you don't change the tax code when the GDP goes up, federal government revenue should go up as well.
In billions of dollars (not adjusted for inflation)
$2,407 revenue on a GDP of $13,207 in 2006
$2,303 revenue on a GDP of $14,959 in 2011
The political questions are regarding how much you spend, what you spend it on, and should you increase taxes or change the tax code. You can also argue that GDP not going up or not going up as fast as predicted. To the best of my knowledge nothing changed in the tax code over those 5 years.
During those 5 years, we added 12.5 million people to the population. That alone should mean more tax revenue simply because you are collecting from more people.
April 24th, 2012 at 4:58:00 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartin
The graph indicates that the GDP is increasing post recession at it's old pace after the unprecedented dip.
Neutral technical question: Is that graph supposed to be inflation adjusted?
April 24th, 2012 at 5:09:34 PM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanzaNeutral technical question: Is that graph supposed to be inflation adjusted?
No!
This graph is inflation adjusted to the year 2005. It doesn't go as high or as low as the previous one.
April 25th, 2012 at 10:21:13 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinIn billions of dollars (not adjusted for inflation)
$2,407 revenue on a GDP of $13,207 in 2006
$2,303 revenue on a GDP of $14,959 in 2011
During those 5 years, we added 12.5 million people to the population. That alone should mean more tax revenue simply because you are collecting from more people.
My question is genuine. I really don't know. But it seems to me that an extra $1.7 trillion in GDP should reasonably generate $300-$400 billion in federal revenue. Instead federal revenue went down by $100 billion.
Now that is not enough to zero out the deficit, but it is equivalent to some of the spending cuts.
Possible answers:
(1) The income from this activity is vanishing into international accounts (private or corporate)
(2) The income is being sheltered by clever tax schemes
(3) Taxes were reduced somehow, but I am not savvy enough to be aware of them
(4) Historically that increase of $1.7 trillion in GDP is a very low percentage for 5 years. People naturally find a way to hide income.
Taxes are not on economic activity. In Europe they have "Value Added Taxes" which some people claim are much more efficient means of taxation.
What amazes me is that I am hard pressed to find many articles or speeches addressing this gap. Mostly because the news is obsessed with spending. Any discussion of revenue centers on the future "Buffet rule".
April 25th, 2012 at 2:27:49 PM
permalink
Pac I will try to simplify the answer.
GDP IS NOT PROFIT. Just b/c GDP goes up doesn't mean profit went up
States and local Gov. have sales taxes. The Fed is primarily a profit tax system for businesses. (Yes you do have some sales taxes for the Fed i.e. fuel)
In short,
People pay an income tax. Businesses pay a profit tax.
GDP IS NOT PROFIT. Just b/c GDP goes up doesn't mean profit went up
States and local Gov. have sales taxes. The Fed is primarily a profit tax system for businesses. (Yes you do have some sales taxes for the Fed i.e. fuel)
In short,
People pay an income tax. Businesses pay a profit tax.
May 4th, 2012 at 9:33:15 PM
permalink
Quote: whatmePac I will try to simplify the answer.
GDP IS NOT PROFIT. Just b/c GDP goes up doesn't mean profit went up
In short, People pay an income tax. Businesses pay a profit tax.
I think that answer is too simplified. I'm looking into more insight.
Businesses are in business for profit. It seems to me that an increase of $1.7 trillion should produce some more profit. Instead we have a large drop in Corporate Income Taxes.
| Fiscal Year | 2006 | 2012 | Change$ | Change% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual Income Taxes | $1,043,908 | $1,164,650 | $120,742 | 11.6% |
| Corporate Income Taxes | $353,915 | $236,801 | $(117,114) | -33.1% |
| Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts | $837,821 | $840,650 | $2,829 | 0.3% |
| Excise Taxes | $73,961 | $79,415 | $5,454 | 7.4% |
| Customs Duties and Fees | $24,810 | $30,817 | $6,007 | 24.2% |
| Estate and Gift Taxes | $27,877 | $11,377 | $(16,500) | -59.2% |
| Miscellaneous Receipts | $44,577 | $104,889 | $60,312 | 135.3% |
| Total | $2,406,869 | $2,468,599 | $61,730 | 2.6% |
May 8th, 2012 at 9:24:12 PM
permalink
Pac I gave a short answer b/c if I were to go further the frustration with government BS would get JB suspended for 30 days!!!
GDP is based on "market value" not actual price paid by customers.
Take a can of tuna fish, 3 stores selling it at $1.99, $1.89, and $1.79 the market value is $1.89. However if you use a coupon that saves you $1 the market value remains at $1.89. Coupons, sales, rebates, and anything else (short of permanently lowering the price) business use to get you to buy tuna fish is an ADVERTISEING EXPENCE, and does not affect the value.
While business want to make $ people are cheap. They well we, will not pay more $ simply b/c the costs of the products/services skyrocket. People want "value" so while sales are going up, the profits are dropping well based on your chart plummeting.
If I go any further I'll get banned.
In short GDP is worthless garbage.
GDP is based on "market value" not actual price paid by customers.
Take a can of tuna fish, 3 stores selling it at $1.99, $1.89, and $1.79 the market value is $1.89. However if you use a coupon that saves you $1 the market value remains at $1.89. Coupons, sales, rebates, and anything else (short of permanently lowering the price) business use to get you to buy tuna fish is an ADVERTISEING EXPENCE, and does not affect the value.
While business want to make $ people are cheap. They well we, will not pay more $ simply b/c the costs of the products/services skyrocket. People want "value" so while sales are going up, the profits are dropping well based on your chart plummeting.
If I go any further I'll get banned.
In short GDP is worthless garbage.
May 9th, 2012 at 6:57:42 PM
permalink
Quote: whatmeGDP is based on "market value" not actual price paid by customers.
Take a can of tuna fish, 3 stores selling it at $1.99, $1.89, and $1.79 the market value is $1.89. However if you use a coupon that saves you $1 the market value remains at $1.89. Coupons, sales, rebates, and anything else (short of permanently lowering the price) business use to get you to buy tuna fish is an ADVERTISEING EXPENCE, and does not affect the value.
In short GDP is worthless garbage.
Hypothetically if the government says the GDP of Nevada is $127.5 billion in 2010.
The NGC says the top 256 casino (over $1 million gaming apiece) had $22 billion in revenue for the year ending June 30, 2010 .
They go on to say that there were 52.7 million rooms available, of which 43.225 million were rented at an average daily rate of $100.52
So the revenue for the rooms was 43.225 million TIMES $100.52 = $4.345 billion.
But $ one billion dollars of rooms were comped.
So how do the rooms get figured into GDP for Nevada? As $4.345 billion, or as $3.345 billion (less comps), or as some other calculation called "market value".
That could be the rack rate of all the rooms including the ones that are empty, which could be $10 billion or higher.
Gross GDP = C + I + G + (X − M)
C= consumption
I = Investment
G = Government spending
X= Exports
M = imports
May 9th, 2012 at 8:12:39 PM
permalink
Quote: whatmePac I gave a short answer b/c if I were to go further the frustration with government BS would get JB suspended for 30 days!!!
Huh?
May 9th, 2012 at 8:35:53 PM
permalink
Comps are considered as expenses for the casino. The hotels had $4.345 b in revenue, based on your figures. Mind you the casino has other rooms on hold that the hotel can't sell publicly.
The casino pays the hotel for the rooms so if they want the hotel to have a 99% occupancy @ $300 a night, all that has to happen is to have 99 rooms comped, 1 room available but not used, the other rooms not available, and the casino pays the hotel $300*99=$29,700. btw casino hotel occupancy and rates get manipulated like this all the time.
Since the casino pays a fixed price for the rooms that price is what the value is for the comped room.
The easy answer to how GDP is calculated is to take market value and not care about discounts or whether other companies or divisions are paying the bill.
The casino pays the hotel for the rooms so if they want the hotel to have a 99% occupancy @ $300 a night, all that has to happen is to have 99 rooms comped, 1 room available but not used, the other rooms not available, and the casino pays the hotel $300*99=$29,700. btw casino hotel occupancy and rates get manipulated like this all the time.
Since the casino pays a fixed price for the rooms that price is what the value is for the comped room.
The easy answer to how GDP is calculated is to take market value and not care about discounts or whether other companies or divisions are paying the bill.
May 9th, 2012 at 8:41:33 PM
permalink
JB I should have been a bit clearer.
I mean no disrespect just that, Had you posted what I would have with all the bad language you would have been suspended, I would have been kicked out.
Sorry for the confusion.
I mean no disrespect just that, Had you posted what I would have with all the bad language you would have been suspended, I would have been kicked out.
Sorry for the confusion.
May 9th, 2012 at 8:58:12 PM
permalink
This reminds me of the question: Who is John Galt?
June 24th, 2012 at 12:52:32 AM
permalink
Quote: whatmeGDP is based on "market value" not actual price paid by customers. In short GDP is worthless garbage.
So if nobody agrees that the problem is a revenue shortfall, in what area of spending is the government gone overboard? I can break down human resources into the first level (if it helps).
- Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
- Health
- Medicare
- Income Security
- Social Security
-
Veterans Benefits and Services
Human Resource spending is now exceeding anemic revenue.Revenue Total, Federal outlays Fiscal Year National Defense Net interest Physical resources Other functions Undistributed offsetting receipts Human resources $1,258,566 $1,461,753 1994 $281,640 $202,932 $70,677 $74,845 -$37,772 $869,431 $1,351,790 $1,515,742 1995 $272,063 $232,134 $59,113 $73,099 -$44,455 $923,788 $1,453,053 $1,560,484 1996 $265,748 $241,053 $64,170 $68,859 -$37,620 $958,274 $1,579,232 $1,601,116 1997 $270,502 $243,984 $59,852 $74,362 -$49,973 $1,002,389 $1,721,728 $1,652,458 1998 $268,194 $241,118 $74,669 $82,206 -$47,194 $1,033,465 $1,827,452 $1,701,842 1999 $274,769 $229,755 $81,892 $98,101 -$40,445 $1,057,770 $2,025,191 $1,788,950 2000 $294,363 $222,949 $84,925 $113,777 -$42,581 $1,115,517 $1,991,082 $1,862,846 2001 $304,732 $206,167 $97,492 $107,049 -$47,011 $1,194,417 $1,853,136 $2,010,894 2002 $348,456 $170,949 $104,308 $117,026 -$47,392 $1,317,547 $1,782,314 $2,159,899 2003 $404,744 $153,073 $115,577 $123,030 -$54,382 $1,417,857 $1,880,114 $2,292,841 2004 $455,833 $160,245 $116,239 $133,252 -$58,537 $1,485,809 $2,153,611 $2,471,957 2005 $495,308 $183,986 $130,131 $141,743 -$65,224 $1,586,013 $2,406,869 $2,655,050 2006 $521,827 $226,603 $164,699 $138,245 -$68,250 $1,671,926 $2,567,985 $2,728,686 2007 $551,271 $237,109 $133,815 $130,338 -$82,238 $1,758,391 $2,523,991 $2,982,544 2008 $616,073 $252,757 $161,883 $142,436 -$86,242 $1,895,637 $2,104,989 $3,517,677 2009 $661,049 $186,902 $443,791 $162,781 -$92,639 $2,155,793 $2,162,724 $3,456,213 2010 $693,586 $196,194 $88,753 $174,065 -$82,116 $2,385,731 $2,303,466 $3,603,061 2011 $705,625 $229,968 $161,850 $177,374 -$86,494 $2,414,738 $2,468,599 $3,795,547 2012 estimate $716,300 $224,784 $279,960 $200,320 -$98,897 $2,473,080
June 24th, 2012 at 3:17:41 AM
permalink
I think it has something to do with blood from a turnip.
June 24th, 2012 at 3:24:42 AM
permalink
The casino pays an arbitrarily determined fixed-price for the room which is simply a bookkeeping value not a market value.
I don't see any reason to have high priced hotel rooms other than it allows for discounts and comps at high rates. Its still a "sticker" price from thin air.
I don't see any reason to have high priced hotel rooms other than it allows for discounts and comps at high rates. Its still a "sticker" price from thin air.
June 24th, 2012 at 4:27:02 AM
permalink
GDP for USA grew at 1.9% annually for 1st Qtr of 2012.
In the same time period:
China grew at 8.1% annually
India grew at 5.3% annually
So you have a Communist country beating America and a democratic country too.
Supposedly government spending grew slower in the quarter - if you can believe anything that comes from the government as being 100% honest.
So what does this mean?
Simple - American companies and citizens are scared to death and refuse to spend more at this time period; while others appear to be speeding away from us.
Every government that ever existed ONLY has 2 tools at it's disposal:
1) Tax an activity and you get less of it
2) Subsidize an activity and you get more of it
America is simply taxing and subsidizing wrong - that's what's wrong with America. We are NOT taxing and subsidizing too little, we have it 180 degrees wrong. But America has bitten at the Socialist apple and want's to be more like Europe - which is in deep trouble for doing the wrong taxing and subsidizing too.
For those of you waiting for higher paying jobs America is much too hostile towards business anymore. We have a president at war with American businesses, unless that business is to his liking; a guy who has never run nor worked for a corporation in his life. The jobs that left America will NEVER come back - they are lost forever. If we want new, high paying jobs, we will have to invent them.
America is taxing and subsidizing too much - we can't afford it and we've enslaved future generations of Americans to pay for our stupidity.
Time to cut the Federal, State, and local governments - time to gut them - we can't afford them at this size, nor can our unborn children who must repay the current loans for this insanity as they grow up.
America has the highest corporate taxes of any country on earth - we are #1 at something.
Like I said, if you want less of something just increase it's taxes - and we wonder why there are no jobs and companies are not investing in America...............
In the same time period:
China grew at 8.1% annually
India grew at 5.3% annually
So you have a Communist country beating America and a democratic country too.
Supposedly government spending grew slower in the quarter - if you can believe anything that comes from the government as being 100% honest.
So what does this mean?
Simple - American companies and citizens are scared to death and refuse to spend more at this time period; while others appear to be speeding away from us.
Every government that ever existed ONLY has 2 tools at it's disposal:
1) Tax an activity and you get less of it
2) Subsidize an activity and you get more of it
America is simply taxing and subsidizing wrong - that's what's wrong with America. We are NOT taxing and subsidizing too little, we have it 180 degrees wrong. But America has bitten at the Socialist apple and want's to be more like Europe - which is in deep trouble for doing the wrong taxing and subsidizing too.
For those of you waiting for higher paying jobs America is much too hostile towards business anymore. We have a president at war with American businesses, unless that business is to his liking; a guy who has never run nor worked for a corporation in his life. The jobs that left America will NEVER come back - they are lost forever. If we want new, high paying jobs, we will have to invent them.
America is taxing and subsidizing too much - we can't afford it and we've enslaved future generations of Americans to pay for our stupidity.
Time to cut the Federal, State, and local governments - time to gut them - we can't afford them at this size, nor can our unborn children who must repay the current loans for this insanity as they grow up.
America has the highest corporate taxes of any country on earth - we are #1 at something.
Like I said, if you want less of something just increase it's taxes - and we wonder why there are no jobs and companies are not investing in America...............
June 25th, 2012 at 1:30:52 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunsetGDP for USA grew at 1.9% annually for 1st Qtr of 2012.
In the same time period:
China grew at 8.1% annually
India grew at 5.3% annually
So you have a Communist country beating America and a democratic country too.
I don't know how much information you can extract from GDP growth for a single quarter. Iceland is very high as it draws itself out of a deep depression.
10.1% Iceland
7.4% China
5.7% Norway
5.7% Chile
5.5% Indonesia
5.4% India
5.3% Mexico
4.7% Japan
4.7% New Zealand
5.3% Australia
3.6% Argentina
3.5% Korea
3.3% Poland
3.2% Finland
3.1% G20
3.1% Sweden
3.0% Slovak Republic
2.9% Israel
2.8% Switzerland
2.7% South Africa
2.2% NAFTA
2.1% Germany
2.0% OECD - Total
1.9% Canada
1.9% United States
1.6% G7
1.3% Denmark
1.3% Belgium
1.3% Austria
1.2% Estonia
0.8% Brazil
0.7% Slovenia
0.2% France
0.0% Euro area (17 countries)
-0.1% European Union (27 countries)
-0.3% Portugal
-0.6% Netherlands
-1.3% Spain
-1.3% United Kingdom
-3.1% Czech Republic
-3.2% Italy
-4.7% Hungary
June 25th, 2012 at 2:24:15 PM
permalink
Wow!
Things are hot in Iceland............
Things are hot in Iceland............
June 25th, 2012 at 2:34:35 PM
permalink
Mexico increased 5.3% USA 1.9%
What aren't Americans illegally emigrating to Mexico ?
What aren't Americans illegally emigrating to Mexico ?
June 25th, 2012 at 2:40:22 PM
permalink
This is the secret George Bush plan - he destroyed the economy for 20 years and folks will flee America for Canada and Mexico - for their welfare systems.
Got to hand it to Bush..............
Got to hand it to Bush..............
June 25th, 2012 at 2:41:37 PM
permalink
Got to hand it to Bush.............. Sneaky bastard. No deficit spending for George boy. Or so he said. LOL
June 25th, 2012 at 2:50:00 PM
permalink
Hopefully later this week all the freeloaders wanting free unlimited world-class medical care will start to consider Canada with Mexico as their next place to get freebies.
So far the total destruction is right on course and 16 years from now only Conservatives will be left and we will buy America for 10 cents on the dollar.
I've been scouting a mile long strip of beach in Wailea Maui that I can hopefully pick up for a couple of bucks, or a couple of pounds of recycled aluminum cans.......
So far the total destruction is right on course and 16 years from now only Conservatives will be left and we will buy America for 10 cents on the dollar.
I've been scouting a mile long strip of beach in Wailea Maui that I can hopefully pick up for a couple of bucks, or a couple of pounds of recycled aluminum cans.......
June 25th, 2012 at 3:31:20 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunsetWow!
Things are hot in Iceland............
Iceland went from an $8 billion GDP in 2001 to a $20 billion GDP in 2007 to $12 billion GDP in 2009. So having a high percentage in 1st quarter of 2012 just means they are recovering a tiny fraction of what they lost.
I'm rich, no your not, yes I am , check again, oh shit, I'm rich again, I'm poor!
June 25th, 2012 at 6:17:28 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunset
So you have a Communist country beating America and a democratic country too.
China is Communist in name only. Its really a capitalist nation wherein the only functioning institution was the Army and the cronies of Army personnel.
Iceland is a klan oriented nation whose banks did not operate as banks, the Russian Mob saw an opportunity because there were too few people in the entire country to ever have a good banking watchdog.
June 25th, 2012 at 7:38:53 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffIceland is a klan oriented nation whose banks did not operate as banks, the Russian Mob saw an opportunity because there were too few people in the entire country to ever have a good banking watchdog.
Iceland was comparable to Russian oligarchs increasing their wealth during the sell-off of their country's natural resources at the end of the 1990s. The banks in Iceland were sold at dumping prices to people with strong personal ties to the governing parties. In return, politicians were made members of one or another bank's board of directors. A symbiosis of power was created, characterized by double loyalties and a lot of people getting "rich − very rich."
