3 ms·

Is there any information on the total tax burden to the economy? or even the defense budget as a percentage of estimated GDP? I’m suspecting it was a much lowe

Is there any information on the total tax burden to the economy? or even the defense budget as a percentage of estimated GDP? I’m suspecting it was a much lower percentage overall, maybe 10% maximum. This crucial number is conveniently omitted in the article.

actionfromafar 4y ago
conveniently?
- ggm 4y ago
  A basis for argument by low tax fanatics that think a modern Athenian state is possible, drugs, TV shows, VLSI and togas, all in with jets and retsina. UK income tax was notoriously applied as a temporary expedient. The low tax fans want a return to the pre Victorian levels of poverty that went hand in hand with the non-welfare state.
  - Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
    I don't think so. Low tax advocates want a more streamlined government that looks after core functions (managing trash, police, etc) rather than what it has taken on today (entire multimillion dollar agencies tasked with getting more women into high status jobs, regulation of the size and shape of cabbages, etc) The idea that "people who want less tax than I do just crave widespread poverty" is a sign you have an ideological brainworm. No one thinks like that.
    - beedeebeedee 4y ago
      > The idea that "people who want less tax than I do just crave widespread poverty" is a sign you have an ideological brainworm. No one thinks like that. Plenty of people think that. They might not admit it publicly (or even admit the full implications to themselves), but they still think it, and more importantly, try to act on it.
      - lvass 4y ago
        Kindly reread HN guidelines, particularly: Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
      - Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
        Name three. This is just something people believe in your imagination.
    - whakim 4y ago
      Without getting into a debate about what the government should or should not do, I just want to point out that it's disingenuous to argue that a relatively large portion of government spending has anything to do with "getting more women into high status jobs" or "regulation of the size and shape of cabbage." The vast majority of what "government has taken on today" (compared to 150 years ago) relates to the social safety net, education, and health care.
    - Epa095 4y ago
      How large percentage of your tax bill do you think goes to getting more women into high status jobs, or regulating the size of cabbages? Whenever I see politicians actually try to lower expenses it always turns out that most money is used on healthcare, schools, police, military, and essential governmen services, and these things are the things that ends up beeing cut, just because that's where the big money goes. Remove all 'get women employed'-projects, and it would probably not make a visible change to your tax percentage at all.
      - Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
        While that may be the case, it is still evidence the government is ideologically captured by activists and willing to spend money on nonsense. Hard to imagine healthcare is run on a lean, waste-free budget with that sort of stuff. (Cue discussion about covid rationing involving "equity" considerations, etc)
    - RhysU 4y ago
      Loving the "of cabbages and kings" ring to your comment.
whakim 4y ago
In Capital and Ideology, Piketty calculates that 19th-century European states (such as France and the UK) collected about 7% of their national income in taxes (most of which was spent on defense, courts, infrastructure such as roads, etc). 19th-century European states did a lot more than ancient ones, so I think <5% of national income is a reasonable estimate. Suffice it to say that at such a low level of taxation you wouldn't expect many people to be taxed directly.

actionfromafar 4y ago

conveniently?

ggm 4y ago
A basis for argument by low tax fanatics that think a modern Athenian state is possible, drugs, TV shows, VLSI and togas, all in with jets and retsina. UK income tax was notoriously applied as a temporary expedient. The low tax fans want a return to the pre Victorian levels of poverty that went hand in hand with the non-welfare state.
- Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
  I don't think so. Low tax advocates want a more streamlined government that looks after core functions (managing trash, police, etc) rather than what it has taken on today (entire multimillion dollar agencies tasked with getting more women into high status jobs, regulation of the size and shape of cabbages, etc) The idea that "people who want less tax than I do just crave widespread poverty" is a sign you have an ideological brainworm. No one thinks like that.
  - beedeebeedee 4y ago
    > The idea that "people who want less tax than I do just crave widespread poverty" is a sign you have an ideological brainworm. No one thinks like that. Plenty of people think that. They might not admit it publicly (or even admit the full implications to themselves), but they still think it, and more importantly, try to act on it.
    - lvass 4y ago
      Kindly reread HN guidelines, particularly: Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
    - Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
      Name three. This is just something people believe in your imagination.
  - whakim 4y ago
    Without getting into a debate about what the government should or should not do, I just want to point out that it's disingenuous to argue that a relatively large portion of government spending has anything to do with "getting more women into high status jobs" or "regulation of the size and shape of cabbage." The vast majority of what "government has taken on today" (compared to 150 years ago) relates to the social safety net, education, and health care.
  - Epa095 4y ago
    How large percentage of your tax bill do you think goes to getting more women into high status jobs, or regulating the size of cabbages? Whenever I see politicians actually try to lower expenses it always turns out that most money is used on healthcare, schools, police, military, and essential governmen services, and these things are the things that ends up beeing cut, just because that's where the big money goes. Remove all 'get women employed'-projects, and it would probably not make a visible change to your tax percentage at all.
    - Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
      While that may be the case, it is still evidence the government is ideologically captured by activists and willing to spend money on nonsense. Hard to imagine healthcare is run on a lean, waste-free budget with that sort of stuff. (Cue discussion about covid rationing involving "equity" considerations, etc)
  - RhysU 4y ago
    Loving the "of cabbages and kings" ring to your comment.

whakim 4y ago

In Capital and Ideology, Piketty calculates that 19th-century European states (such as France and the UK) collected about 7% of their national income in taxes (most of which was spent on defense, courts, infrastructure such as roads, etc). 19th-century European states did a lot more than ancient ones, so I think <5% of national income is a reasonable estimate. Suffice it to say that at such a low level of taxation you wouldn't expect many people to be taxed directly.