4 ms·

So I went ahead and did a calculation of my own: revenue by all taxes per capita in the state of California between 2005 and 1964. All following figures are fr

So I went ahead and did a calculation of my own: revenue by all taxes per capita in the state of California between 2005 and 1964. All following figures are from US census data: Total revenue from all taxes per capita 1964: $2182.85 (helpfully provided by the 1964 census). Total revenue from all taxes 2005: $146,692,000,000 Total resident population of California, 2005: 36,250,000 Total revenue from all taxes per capita 2005: $4,046.68 1964 number is also adjusted using the CPI calculator

lolhn 16y ago
These numbers of yours are adorable, but you're ignoring the fact that the people who are now abandoning spending on education first voted for spending on a lot of other things. Policy analysis like yours serves only to distract from reality. It's well-intentioned, but fundamentally useless.
Locke1689 16y ago
I'd just like to point out to people reading this (since one commenter already said something then deleted his comment), that I am actually very liberal. I strongly believe in the fundamental role of the government in the welfare of the nation and I also strongly believe that we should be taxed for the money that's needed to make that happen. HOWEVER, what I will never do is frame statistics or data just to fit my argument better. I was curious about this statistic (I don't really believe this tiny bit of data is really evidence for any drastic response) and decided to do the grunt work with the past US census data to satisfy my curiosity, whatever the results. Also, the US census papers look way better in 1964 than they do in 2005. I think the 2005 documents may have a more legible typeface but it certainly makes me go "ugh." The margins are very bad in the '05 docs, too.
stevoski 16y ago
I think you should be looking at revenue by taxes as a % of GDP, rather than in $ terms. Real GDP per person is much higher in CA today than in 1964. Did government spending increase relative to the size of the economy? Or decrease?
- Locke1689 16y ago
  I think that's a good point. The increase should be compared to the increase in GDP, the increase in the workforce (women working) and a number of other variables. I'm swamped as it is, maybe you want to do those calculations? ;)

lolhn 16y ago

These numbers of yours are adorable, but you're ignoring the fact that the people who are now abandoning spending on education first voted for spending on a lot of other things. Policy analysis like yours serves only to distract from reality. It's well-intentioned, but fundamentally useless.

Locke1689 16y ago

I'd just like to point out to people reading this (since one commenter already said something then deleted his comment), that I am actually very liberal. I strongly believe in the fundamental role of the government in the welfare of the nation and I also strongly believe that we should be taxed for the money that's needed to make that happen. HOWEVER, what I will never do is frame statistics or data just to fit my argument better. I was curious about this statistic (I don't really believe this tiny bit of data is really evidence for any drastic response) and decided to do the grunt work with the past US census data to satisfy my curiosity, whatever the results. Also, the US census papers look way better in 1964 than they do in 2005. I think the 2005 documents may have a more legible typeface but it certainly makes me go "ugh." The margins are very bad in the '05 docs, too.

stevoski 16y ago

I think you should be looking at revenue by taxes as a % of GDP, rather than in $ terms. Real GDP per person is much higher in CA today than in 1964. Did government spending increase relative to the size of the economy? Or decrease?

Locke1689 16y ago
I think that's a good point. The increase should be compared to the increase in GDP, the increase in the workforce (women working) and a number of other variables. I'm swamped as it is, maybe you want to do those calculations? ;)