West Ham Online

Nutsin wrote: ↑25 Jan 2026, 15:37

goose wrote: ↑25 Jan 2026, 13:17

Nutsin wrote: ↑25 Jan 2026, 12:50

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.

To match the revenue loss. That’s the entire loss of the revenue, Not the $300 billion deficit numbnuts.

goose wrote: ↑25 Jan 2026, 13:17

Nutsin wrote: ↑25 Jan 2026, 12:50

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 22:25

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.

• 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

Nutsin wrote: ↑25 Jan 2026, 12:50

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 22:25

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 22:20

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!

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑25 Jan 2026, 12:15 Burnham blocked from standing.
Labour obliterated in May elections & Farage on his way to no.10
Unbelievable o.g by Starmer & his stooges

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 22:25

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 22:20

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:59

 

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.

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑25 Jan 2026, 12:15 Burnham blocked from standing.
Labour obliterated in May elections & Farage on his way to no.10
Unbelievable o.g by Starmer & his stooges

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 22:20

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:59

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:50

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 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:59

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:50

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:35

 

 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 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:50

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:35

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:32

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 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:35

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:32

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:08

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 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:32

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:08

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:47

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 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 21:08

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:47

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:26

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.

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:47

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:26

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:22

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?

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:20 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 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:26

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:22

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:17

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 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:22

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:17

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:13

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’

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:17

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:13

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 19:32

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 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 20:13

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 19:32

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 19:30

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

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 19:32

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 19:30

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:58

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 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 19:30

goose wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:58

Nutsin wrote: ↑24 Jan 2026, 16:54

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 ?