- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tariffs I urge caution
Posted on 9/27/24 at 7:34 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/27/24 at 7:34 am to SlowFlowPro
Also, if you're trying to use those numbers as a gotcha, it only makes my argument stronger. I was giving you 20% of GDP. You'll have to have even more GDP increase to cover the deficit at 14-18% rates. Makes my comment that we can't grow our way out of this mess even stronger.
Extrapolate the GDP increase necessary to cover the 2023 deficit at 2023 total collection rates.
Extrapolate the GDP increase necessary to cover the 2023 deficit at 2023 total collection rates.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 7:38 am
0
Posted on 9/27/24 at 7:40 am to Azkiger
quote:
At least tariffs promote domestic jobs.
Temporary jobs for immigrants.
Tariff junkies are oblivious to the ability of the working class in America and the technological revolutions that have made skilled labor a niche.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 7:47 am
Posted on 9/27/24 at 7:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Hauser's Law has never been rejected in my 2 decades on this board
Well thanks for tossing that gasser in.
This is not about Hauser, or rejection of Hauser, it is about SFP. It is about your mischaracterization of Hauser as citing consistent overall revenue in the 20% range regardless of tax policy.
quote:No need. I'm familiar with Hauser. You cited Hauser when I questioned the timeframe your "20%" number came from.
You didn't read the link. First paragraph:
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 7:54 am
Posted on 9/27/24 at 7:56 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
it is about SFP. It is about your mischaracterization of Hauser
Did not happen, as my post above showed.
2023 was well within the same trends relied on.
quote:
consistent overall revenue in the 20% range regardless of tax policy.
Over time, yes. And our discussion was not about tax policy specifically. It was about relying on GDP growth to combat the current deficit levels, which would, again, fall within Hauser's law over the long term of the tax policy.
Your attempt to refute the law, by citing a single year, makes the argument that we can grow GDP to cover the deficit even weaker.
Now, since you're so focused on 2023 as some gotcha, tell me how much our GDP would need to grow from 2023 levels, based on 2023 tax collection, to cover the 2023 deficit.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 7:59 am to Azkiger
quote:
I've seen lots of threads about tariffs over the last week or two (I suspect because progs have sent out their marching orders).
Because they will be inflationary.
Temporary tariffs (a one off) isnt going to cause massive disruption. Long term tariffs absolutely will.
When you cut the tariffs, those industries go offshore again because its not sustainable here in this country and these tariffs act as a subsidy.
We have priced ourselves out of the labor market. Its not China's fault, its the fault of your elected officials.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 8:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:NO!
Your attempt to refute the law
17.5% refutes your claim.
It does not refute "the law."
It refutes your erroneous citation of the law as backing a claim you made regarding 20% in association with current revenue.
This ferreting of detail should not have been a big deal. It's simply that as we approach fiscal dependence, we need to move beyond a causal association with facts.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 8:14 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
This ferreting of detail should not have been a big deal. It's simply that as we approach fiscal dependence, we need to move beyond a causal association with facts.
I posted the facts. I rounded 19.5 up to 20 b/c it's the typical way its used.
17.5 is irrelevant.
Again
quote:
Hauser's law is the empirical observation that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP,
I'll give you another chance to respond substantively instead of this incorrect gotcha digression
quote:
Now, since you're so focused on 2023 as some gotcha, tell me how much our GDP would need to grow from 2023 levels, based on 2023 tax collection, to cover the 2023 deficit.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Now, since you're so focused on 2023 as some gotcha
What recent year would you prefer?
quote:Complicated question.
tell me how much our GDP would need to grow from 2023 levels, based on 2023 tax collection, to cover the 2023 deficit.
E.g. The 2023 deficit increased 42% YoY.
Given the assumption we were serious; assuming we shed residual BuildBackBetter/InflationReductionAct funding, assuming we froze topline real expenditures, and depending on timeframe / interest rates, 5-6% GDP growth per year for 5yrs would be needed.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 8:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Given the assumption we were serious; assuming we shed residual BuildBackBetter/InflationReductionAct funding, assuming we froze topline real expenditures, and depending on timeframe / interest rates,
Nope. You're changing the question.
What Google just told me is the 2023 deficit was $1.7T. I don't think that number should be too controversial, but if you have another number within close range of $1.7T, feel free to use.
We're not using some hypothetical number where certain programs/spending don't exist, to lower the number. We're dealing with reality.
quote:
ow much our GDP would need to grow from 2023 levels, based on 2023 tax collection, to cover the 2023 deficit.
Doing some napkin math based on your numbers, rough estimate, at a 17.5% rate (your number) to get $4.47T would mean a GDP of $25.54
For a $1.7T deficit, our GDP would need to grow roughly $9.7T
So we'd need to grow the economy to roughly $35.2T or 138% of 2023 GDP.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 8:41 am to SlowFlowPro
Same OLD group of men (small group) that believes the false idea of free trade and globalism is great!
Down deep, you all love what is happening in the USA right now don't you.
Down deep, you all love what is happening in the USA right now don't you.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 8:48 am to BCreed1
quote:
that believes the false idea of free trade and globalism is great!
Capitalism is freedom, my dude.
That is not some new comment that was crafted for the post-Trump era on this board. It used to be the dominant view on here.
quote:
you all love what is happening in the USA right now don't you.
You mean growing economic power and SOL? Yeah I do love that.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 8:49 am to BCreed1
quote:
false idea of free trade and globalism is great!
Why do you need the gubment to mediate voluntary transactions?
quote:
Down deep, you all love what is happening in the USA right now don't you
Your tariffs increase immigration. .
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 8:52 am
Posted on 9/27/24 at 9:04 am to BCreed1
quote:
Same OLD group of men (small group) that believes the false idea of free trade
Says the poster who is part of the central planning/big government group.
I will take my freedom.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:FYI, it was ~$2T as opposed to $1.4T the previous year. Mostly attributable to the debt c-of-c delta.
What Google just told me is the 2023 deficit was $1.7T.
quote:Right.
For a $1.7T deficit, our GDP would need to grow roughly $9.7T
You assume interest rates and c-of-c remaining at current levels despite genuine efforts to balance the budget. You assume continued discretionary overspending, and you assume a $1.7T deficit as the requisite closure amount. Fine, let's work with that.
As I said, you'd need 5-6% growth x ~5yrs. Given your assumptions, 6% would put us at ~$9T of your $9.7T. Six yrs would move us past >$11T. So 5 1/2 yrs
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 10:12 am
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:08 am to frogtown
quote:
Says the poster who is part of the central planning/big government group.
Indeed. Tariffs are everything we used to hate.
Cronyism, Central Planning, Corporate welfare, extra taxes on consumer.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:42 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:We are $35T in debt. C-of-C on that load now substantially exceeds any area of the budget. How do you propose drawing that down?
extra taxes on consumer.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
despite genuine efforts to balance the budget
I don't think anyone is arguing that. Reducing spending is a way to deal with the deficit. I'm not arguing that.
But growing our GDP is not going to be enough.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:56 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
How do you propose drawing that down?
Just so its on record, you support tariffs in part because it will close the spending gap.
I would choose another method, like less taxing and less spending.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:59 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:No.
Just so its on record, you support tariffs in part because it will close the spending gap.
I support tariffs for reasons I've delineated countless times here.
Nothing but a multifactorial effort will close the spending gap ... that effort starts 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th with addressing spending.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 5:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Capitalism is freedom, my dude.
We were not capitalists until FDR???? Interesting take on your part.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News