General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShow These Charts To Anyone Who Thinks Debt, Spending, And Taxes Are At All Time Highs
http://www.businessinsider.com/show-these-charts-to-anyone-who-thinks-debt-spending-and-taxes-are-at-all-time-highs-2013-4Think debt, taxes, and spending are at all-time highs these days?
It turns out that belief is almost totally false.
A presentation from the Bureau of Economic Analysis includes three charts that everyone should see.
It turns out, taxes are lower than through most of history, debt as a percentage of GDP has been much higher in the past, and on government spending, only if you include transfer payments (like Social Security) is spending at a new high relative to GDP. If you look at actual government spending that doesn't go straight to people, it's low.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)especially if we want to address income inequality.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)Look at the very first graph as an example. Just at a glance I notice that the two most recent and greatest decreases in taxes as a percentage of Gross National Product came during the Bush Administration and and that current rates are both essentially the same as they have always been but on the increase again.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)first, the business of looking at total revenue as a percent of GDP - first, because that combines FICA and income taxes. Second because it hides huge tax cuts. Take a change from 19% of GDP in 1981 down to 17% of GDP in 1983. My mind says that 19% vs. 17% is not that big a deal. But two percent of $3 trillion is a large chunk of money - $60 billion.
But combining revenues allows cuts in income taxes to be offset by increases in payroll taxes, just like Governor Brownback of Kansas is offsetting his income taxes for the rich by increasing sales taxes on the poor and working class. Total revenue may not be changing much, but the burden is shifting.
Same with the "average income tax rate". If you look at that over decades, well the total average rate is going to be impacted by the increasing share of income going to the top which has been happening over the last 30 years. In 1986 the bottom 50% collectively made more than the top 1%. By 2006, after 25 years of Reaganomics, that was no longer the case.
It's just better not to lump all these things together.
s-cubed
(1,385 posts)What is included in total that's not in defense and no defense. Total is clearly at an all time high. Link did not explain it either.
Edit: middle graph includes Social Security etc in upper line. Wasn't clear to me.