WinterKnight,

I looked at those articles. My thought: apples and oranges

Still no one is suggesting anything. Why?

Well, let's look at the three happiest places in the world according to one of the articles you point to.

Should we strive to be like them? If any of you say yes, then I'll call you a racist. I'll call you Hitler. I'll call you the devil.

Why? Look at the racial makeup and the majority religion in those three happiest places on earth.

Backing up a little further, to even suggest that countries compare our % of revenue to our GDP and to imply that a higher or lower number for one country would make it better because it would move it up the scale or towards the center of a rank ordered list is the short-term thinking from the cancer called liberalism. What works for one country may not work for another country.

Barry, without even a margin of error to account for the variations in the definition of "tax", those numbers are useless as far as I'm concerned. And, yes, our beloved elected officials have shown time and time again they're not in their positions of power and authority for noble reasons.

So, since we are no longer doing budgets, the IRS tax code is so convoluted nobody understands it, the PP&ACA has now implemented the largest tax increase in history and the sequestration thing is teetering on the fulcrum getting ready to swing completely one way or the other based on the outcome of the election on Nov 6, I guess we'll just have to hold off any plans or decisions to start up a new business or file for bankruptcy, hire new employees or downsize, keep our investments in relative low risk piles and wait and see.

http://www.atr.org/five-worst-obamacare-taxes-coming-a7217

After all, who has more power right now?

Why do you think increasing taxes will harm economic growth?

If you look at all the figures since 1950 then you will find that the economy of the US grew just a well, if not better, when the tax rate was highest.

So befome you scream some more about high taxes I suggest you go and study history.

I don't have more time but here's a little piece from the NY times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/economy/slipping-behind-because-of-an-aversion-to-taxes.html?_r=0

+1

WinterKnight,

The tax revenue as a % of GDP, I don't have a problem with. What's in the chart may be relatively accurate +/- some unstated margin of error. Barry in Arizona continues to state different numbers but I really don't care what this number is anymore by itself. As bobby puts in his tag line, I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

My problem is that bobby implied in his original statement that this chart demonstrates how *small* the U.S. government is compared to other nations.

Revenue as a % of GDP alone does not state in any way, shape or form the size of government, especially when you look at the U.S. today.

I said:

I imagine that some will want any rewrite of the tax code to result in smaller government, if that is the case, perhaps it's worth being reminded just how small the US government already is compared to the governments of other nations.

and then posted graphic as Firefox had issues with the link provided in that comment.

Taking on board the criticism that the graphic is of revenues rather than expenditures, a quick search lead me to this from the OECD which ranks the US as being 24th out of the 34 nations reporting expenditures as a %age of GDP in 2009 (the 10 nations lower than the US are Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Korea, Chile and Mexico).

Perhaps noteworthy, for the same year, the World Bank shows the US having the 8th highest expenditures for defense from all the nations it reports, or second of the oecd group. Admittedly not all the oecd nations are in the world bank report, there are 2 nations in the oecd report for which the world bank does not have figures (Luxembourg and Korea).

Regarding the different numbers from BarryAZ, I'm sure it's already been pointed out, BarryAZ's are for Federal revenues, the OECD's are for government, and it seems likely that as the OCED's are higher than BarryAZ's, the OECD is including more than the federal government in its assessment.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Guy, you seem to have missed a critical point here -- taxes by the Federal government are at their lowest level in over 60 YEARS.

I want to see expenditures dropped to historic levels (ie about the proportion of GDP we saw in 1950 to 2000).

I want to see revenues returned to historic levels (ie about the proportion of GDP we saw in 1950 to 2000).

Now if to get those revenue increases the best approach is to simplify the code, spread the burden out, AND reduce all the complicating tax dodges available to the wealthy -- I believe that would be a good thing.

I would only accept that in conjunction with real reform (reduction) on the expenditure side, not just the burgeoning defense establishment, but also a number of the entitlement areas as well, along with real controls generally on federal spending.

Guy, you seem to have missed a critical point here -- taxes by the Federal government are at their lowest level in over 60 YEARS.

Guy's the one that has said the Dems have controlled or almost completely controlled the US gubment for the past 70 years. I think both Phil Collins and Ozzy have both sung about calling it black when I know that it's white.

Barry, many in the far right seem to rewrite history.

---

Guy, you seem to have missed a critical point here -- taxes by the Federal government are at their lowest level in over 60 YEARS.

I want to see expenditures dropped to historic levels (ie about the proportion of GDP we saw in 1950 to 2000).

I want to see revenues returned to historic levels (ie about the proportion of GDP we saw in 1950 to 2000).

Now if to get those revenue increases the best approach is to simplify the code, spread the burden out, AND reduce all the complicating tax dodges available to the wealthy -- I believe that would be a good thing.

I would only accept that in conjunction with real reform (reduction) on the expenditure side, not just the burgeoning defense establishment, but also a number of the entitlement areas as well, along with real controls generally on federal spending.

+1
A realistic middle of the road solution. Who knew.

---

#resist

Dave, sadly, while it might be rational -- it is not realistic. Much of the Teapublican party is guided by folks who have a belief system and sense of reality similar to Guy. Also, many of the Democrats are not only too tied to the retention of the level and breadth of entitlements, but also have some inclination to expand them. Of course for the Democrats, perhaps part of that is in response to the absolute intransigence they have encountered from the Teapublican party.

Guy, you seem to have missed a critical point here -- taxes by the Federal government are at their lowest level in over 60 YEARS.

I want to see expenditures dropped to historic levels (ie about the proportion of GDP we saw in 1950 to 2000).

I want to see revenues returned to historic levels (ie about the proportion of GDP we saw in 1950 to 2000).

Now if to get those revenue increases the best approach is to simplify the code, spread the burden out, AND reduce all the complicating tax dodges available to the wealthy -- I believe that would be a good thing.

I would only accept that in conjunction with real reform (reduction) on the expenditure side, not just the burgeoning defense establishment, but also a number of the entitlement areas as well, along with real controls generally on federal spending.

+1
A realistic middle of the road solution. Who knew.

Guy, you seem to have missed a critical point here -- taxes by the Federal government are at their lowest level in over 60 YEARS.

I want to see expenditures dropped to historic levels (ie about the proportion of GDP we saw in 1950 to 2000).

I want to see revenues returned to historic levels (ie about the proportion of GDP we saw in 1950 to 2000).

Now if to get those revenue increases the best approach is to simplify the code, spread the burden out, AND reduce all the complicating tax dodges available to the wealthy -- I believe that would be a good thing.

I would only accept that in conjunction with real reform (reduction) on the expenditure side, not just the burgeoning defense establishment, but also a number of the entitlement areas as well, along with real controls generally on federal spending.

I believe that is called sequestration.

---

My, just love the Bush tax cuts were for the uber-rich only.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/pf/taxes/fiscal-cliff-tax/

American households face an average tax increase of $3,500 if Congress doesn't act to avert the fiscal cliff

Overall, 88% of households would end up with higher taxes.

households making up to $20,113 would see a $412 average increase

Yep, that's the 47% who don't pay tax now ...

Yes, the Bush tax cuts were only for the uber-rich ...

---

My, just love the Bush tax cuts were for the uber-rich only.

I hsven't heard a single person claim that, verbally or in an online post.
As it is, such a person would then have a hard time explaining the so-called attempts to hold on to the tax cuts for the middle class (and let the ones for the rich expire).

Gary, real reform isn't sequestration -- that simply something of a brain dead across the board cut in all programs that allow it (not entitlements).

Real reform goes after those big ticket items and prioritizes reductions in a rational manner. That being said, the plus side of sequestration is that it *ought* to compel both parties to make an effort to work together -- that along with the demise of the Bush tax cuts -- so that a governance oriented deal can be made.

I believe that is called sequestration.

Gary -- yes, the elimination of all the Bush cuts would place all folks in the depression level Clinton era tax burden. That being said, the nature of the Bush cuts DID disproportionately help out the very wealthy.

Real reform goes after those big ticket items and prioritizes reductions in a rational manner.

So you are saying that the levels of government spending we have today aren't rational and are in need of reform. If they were then an across the board hair trim would not change them. As I doubt there will be any meeting of the minds or all the earmarks of past and cutting them, I doubt that any spending reduction can be implemented other than an across the board cut.

---

disproportionately

Someone someday is going to have to define that mathematically.

---

disproportionately

Someone someday is going to have to define that mathematically.

Gary, as you should know, the tax cuts were not linear.

---

Gary, actually I believe the statistics available on wealth distribution might just have done that for you.

That being said, I'm not alone in seeing the need for balance regarding spending cuts and revenue increases. From a Washington Post column today:

"Behind the scenes, serious people in the administration and Congress, of both parties, are discussing ways to avert the economic shock of suddenly hiking taxes and throttling back spending. But there can be no pathway to success unless enough partisans on both sides give up on their foundational myths: for Republicans, that the fiscal challenge can be solved through spending cuts alone; for Democrats, that tax increases on the wealthy will suffice."

Gary, the 'simple' approach might be across the board cuts -- but you are bright enough to realize that sequestration does NOT affect Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a number of other programs. Since it doesn't and you appear to advocate sequestration, that suggests you also accept that these 'protected programs' should continue as they are.

The thing is, a different version of you has stated before that you certainly don't accept that the protected programs should continue as they do.

That sort of divergence from you sounds almost 'Romney-like'.

So, for me, the impending sequestration, and the elimination of all the Bush tax cuts *could* signal to Congress the need to work out some more rational approach.

If it did, I believe both you and I would welcome that.

Gary, the 'simple' approach might be across the board cuts -- but you are bright enough to realize that sequestration does NOT affect Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a number of other programs. Since it doesn't and you appear to advocate sequestration, that suggests you also accept that these 'protected programs' should continue as they are.

They are insurance products and should be treated as such, fully funded by the people who are entitles to the benefit without a dime of general funding ever being spent on them. If they are programs then they should be cut to flat zero immediately. The government never should be in the entitlement business.

The thing is, a different version of you has stated before that you certainly don't accept that the protected programs should continue as they do.

That sort of divergence from you sounds almost 'Romney-like'.

So, for me, the impending sequestration, and the elimination of all the Bush tax cuts *could* signal to Congress the need to work out some more rational approach.

If it did, I believe both you and I would welcome that.

Yes. I seriously doubt it can. If either party doesn't win a landslide the other has far too much political capital to gain by allowing sequestration, pointing and saying the other side did it. If there was a landslide then they could not permit sequestration as it would devastate them.

The only rational basis is zero based budgeting. Never going to happen. It would put far to many civil servants out of work.

What functions must the Federal Government do?

In no particular order:
1) Secure the border in peace time
2) Operate the air traffic control system
3) License radio transmitters
4) Operate a court system
5) Provide a National Defense
6) Operate embassies in other countries
7) Provide Presidential/Congressional Security
8) Investigate/Prosecute Federal Crimes
9) Operate the Library of Congress
10) Run the National Parks, Forests, etc.
11) Collect Taxes
12) Preform a census
13) Promote national standards
14) Spy
15) Run prisons
...
Feel free to add, but try and keep it broad. Thinking about preventing duplication of programs in different departments as we do today. I'm sure the list is in the hundreds and I don't think I've even got all that are mentioned in the constitution.

Once we agree on the list, then we get to put priorities on them.

---