3 ms·

This is an ahistorical take. Looking only at a handful of tax rates and not tax policy is incredibly misleading. Tax as a percent of the economy has gone thro

This is an ahistorical take. Looking only at a handful of tax rates and not tax policy is incredibly misleading. Tax as a percent of the economy has gone through the roof, both as a percent of GDP, and as inflation adjusted dollars. If you compare to a benchmark like the 1940s, tax% of GDP has more than doubled[1], and GDP has increased ~4.5x[2]. This means someone today pays about 10X the taxes (controlling for for inflation!). State and local taxes have grown even faster than federal taxes.[3] Put another way. Taxes/Real GDP has gone from 2% o Federal tax/GDP: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ockN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ockN Real GDP: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA State +local/Real GDP:https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W070RC1Q027SBEA#0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W070RC1Q027SBEA#0

gamblor956 2y ago
Your first chart actually shows that federal tax as a % of GDP has remained essentially unchanged since the 1940s, despite the significant changes in tax rates since then. What has changed in the amount of spending as a % of GDP.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Depends on where you cut the comparison. In 1930 they were 4.4% of GDP In 1940 they were 6.3% of GDP In 2023 they were 16.2% of GDP. Federal spending has indeed Grown faster than receipts, but I dont want to muddy the water with debt spending and inflationary effects, and dont have to because Taxes per GDP is fractional and accounts for inflation. The main point I want to drive home is the change in total tax amount, controlling for inflation. People tend to focus on percent tax burden and over look the total tax payment in inflation adjusted real dollars.
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    No, my point was that your cited data source shows that, as a % of GDP, income taxes are unchanged since the 1940s. This is because when you look at the taxes actually paid, it evens out due to deductions, credits, changes to the brackets, etc. It's only if you look at statutory progressive rates that it appears that federal income taxes appear to be a larger % of US GDP.

gamblor956 2y ago

Your first chart actually shows that federal tax as a % of GDP has remained essentially unchanged since the 1940s, despite the significant changes in tax rates since then. What has changed in the amount of spending as a % of GDP.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Depends on where you cut the comparison. In 1930 they were 4.4% of GDP In 1940 they were 6.3% of GDP In 2023 they were 16.2% of GDP. Federal spending has indeed Grown faster than receipts, but I dont want to muddy the water with debt spending and inflationary effects, and dont have to because Taxes per GDP is fractional and accounts for inflation. The main point I want to drive home is the change in total tax amount, controlling for inflation. People tend to focus on percent tax burden and over look the total tax payment in inflation adjusted real dollars.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  No, my point was that your cited data source shows that, as a % of GDP, income taxes are unchanged since the 1940s. This is because when you look at the taxes actually paid, it evens out due to deductions, credits, changes to the brackets, etc. It's only if you look at statutory progressive rates that it appears that federal income taxes appear to be a larger % of US GDP.