Tax Receipts as a Percent of GDP

07/008/2011 | Mark Warner

[freepdawg]

Democrat Senator tells bald-faced whopper about US tax revenues as a percent of GDP

[freepdawg]

I just heard (around 9:20 am CST), Mark Warner, Senator Virginia say that average US tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has historically been 20%-21%. Didn't seem right, so I googled it.

See truth here. More like 16%-18% since 1950 (an undoubtedly lower than that 1913 to 1949 and 0% prior to inception of federal income tax.

Of course Fox anchor didn't know the truth and therefore didn't call Warner out.

I literally had the number before the interview was over. When is Fox (or anybody else in the MSM) going to put in place some real time fact checkers so they can catch these lies as they happen and challenge the interviewee with the truth and stop this crap.

[freepdawg]

corrected link: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/

[DManA]

The real point is that the Federal government is SPENDING 25% GDP. 20% does seem to be a "magic" number. No mater what the tax laws are they are always collecting about 20%.

[PENANCE]

This is something I've never understood. Mark Levin has repeatedly advocated permanently setting taxes as a % of GDP to 19% (an idea he says was thought up by Milton Friedman). Apparently because 19% is some historical average.

This, of course, would establish a permanently growing government. Moreover, it would set the initial percentage at a rate that most people already consider too high. And, it would do nothing to limit (let aloone decrease) the national debt.

Has anyone else heard of this proposal, and why would any sane person (much less Milton Friedman or Mark Levin) advocate it?

[wita]

...AND if we are collecting 20% and SPENDING 25% anyone with half a brain should understand what the problem is.

[DManA]

We’re not talking about advanced calculus are we.

[Sherman Logan]

(an undoubtedly lower than that 1913 to 1949 and 0% prior to inception of federal income tax.

Much higher during WWII (as it should have been).

Refers to total tax receipts, not just those from federal income tax.

In 1860 US GDP was about $4.4B, total federal budget about $60M. Or about 1.4%.

[Nat Turner]

In 1860 US GDP was about $4.4B, total federal budget about $60M. Or about 1.4%.

I'm good with 1.4%, just index for population growth and fix the dollar to the 1959 value and call it a day. Of course that means that 95% of the spending unauthorized by the Constitution has to go. On the other hand, a CW2 would leave us with a GDP of $4-5B, but it would quickly recover if the Republic survived and the statists were placed into PERMANENT EXILE....

[Sherman Logan]

All fine and dandy, except that if we spent no money on anything except defense we’d be at around 4.7% of GDP.

Do you really want to cut the defense budget by over 2/3?

[Wuli]

"This is something I've never understood. Mark Levin has repeatedly advocated permanently setting taxes as a % of GDP to 19% (an idea he says was thought up by Milton Friedman). Apparently because 19% is some historical average."

I think SOME (not all) of the differences bandied about with these percentages involves whether or not the payroll tax revenue is or isn't included.

Income Tax as % GDP 1996-2016

Social Insurance Taxes as % GDP 1996-2016

Business and Other Revenue as % of GDP 1996-2016

Total Direct Revenue as % of GDP 1996-2016

It seems if we are only looking at the personal income tax, we are in the 10-15% range. If we add the corporate taxes, we move closer to a 12 to 20% range, and if we add the payroll taxes we move to a range between 30 and 35%.

That's if we are to believe the source for the numbers and charts I cited.

[sportutegrl]

Bernanke was spouting this same line about a year ago. His point was that no matter what the tax rate is set at, the revenue generated is about 20% of GDP. The point is, it is constant. He was trying to use this to justify a national sales tax to increase revenue.

But, if anything, this proves that no more taxes will work to increase revenue. If taxes will always be about X% (a constant) of GDP, then the only way to increase revenue is to increase GDP. And the way to do that is: (drum roll) lower tax rates.

Consider this a proof of the Laffer Curve theorem.

[Nat Turner]

5% of our GDP was comparable to most of our Post WWII history so I would not have any heartburn with that level...provided we got rid of the vote buying, pork barrel, great society waste! We could even hit $20+ Trillion GDP and that would be swell!!

[Sherman Logan]

5% of our GDP was comparable to most of our Post WWII history

Nope. 1950 to 2001 varied from 16% to 23%. Highest, BTW, under Reagan.

Ends in 2001, of course.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3521&type=0

Here's another chart, with make your own chart tools, for the entire 20th and to date.

We were around 7% in 1900. Went above 20% in 1933 and hasn't dropped below that point since.

I wonder if it ever dropped below 5% since the Civil War.

[Sherman Logan]

Note, my links in post 13 are to charts of federal expenditures, not tax receipts, which as we all know are not always the same thing.

[Nat Turner]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

This is what the CIA says...

Global Rank                                  GDP%

24                     United States     4.06     2005 est.   

 

GDP is NOT A percentage of the total federal budget.... numbers do matter....

[Sherman Logan]

Would be glad to respond, but don’t have a clue what you’re trying to say.