Do you recall that statement by Nevada Senator Harry Reid that he couldn't understand how any "Hispanic" could vote Republican?
I don't understand how anyone who is financially astute and literate (including CPA's) could vote for ever-higher taxes and fees - regardless of what "services" are provided "for free" in return.
My little adventure in the UK showed me that salaries are lower there (in general) and the cost of housing and food is not correspondingly lower - in many, if not all, cases - these basics also cost more in terms of real money. It doesn't matter whether one compares pound-to-pound and percent of income basis, or converts to dollars, and compares the converted dollar cost of a UK item to a US item.
There is an entire chart put out by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution that purports to prove that the US pays lower taxes as a percentage of per-capita income than all but 5-6 somewhat industrialized nations. Among them are Turkey, Mexico and South Korea (these were all lower on the "chart" than the US). On the "chart," it says people in the US pay 27% of income in local, state and federal taxes as of 2008. It says that the UK residents pay 37% of their income and the UK is about in the middle of the group, with the Scandinavian countries hovering just below 50% in taxes paid. When you click on the button that says "underlying data" for the chart - it simply has the country names and percentage figures and . . . NO DATA.
I found out today that those of us who work in the US are already paying MORE in terms of income percentage and flat pound/dollar expense to our version of the National Insurance programme in the UK - Social Security and MediCare. I pay 12% of my paycheck every 2 weeks for both of these fine programmes. I pay another 25% in income tax. This is 37%, right? The basic Senior Pension in the UK starts at age 66 right now - and pays out about $650 a month (in dollars - about 350 pounds a month). I found no flat or apartment that rented for that little - and that's the MAX, not the minimum. It's less than 100 pounds a month MAX benefit.
But that aside, here are some charts I pulled up - 40 years of tax history in selected categories for the state of California and the US Federal government. These are every 10-year increments and I'll chart them out here:
- 1978 - mid-Carter presidency (taxes raised, bad economy)
- 1988 - end of Reagan presidency (taxes lowered, good economy)
- 1998 - end of Clinton presidency (taxes somewhat raised, good economy)
- 2008 - end of G.W. Bush presidency (taxes lowered, economy failing)
Oh! You take the total expenditures and subtract the total revenue. You also add 3 zeros to the end of each of these numbers. This chart gives total expenditures and total revenues from all sources - because believe me, "taxes" aren't the only source of revenue. Nominal means "actual dollars received" not adjusted for inflation. You can get this retarded chart "adjusted." That's one way people who for some insane reason think that raising taxes and fees produces more income no matter what - try to convince people that they should allow their taxes to be raised.
These simple factual amounts and the differences in growth between the decades show that income to the government increases at a higher rate when taxes are LOWERED and grows at a slower rate when taxes are RAISED - especially in conjunction with other fees/costs.
| California, Nominal | 1978 | 1988 | 1998 | 2008 |
| (R01) Total Revenue | $50,078,772 | $120,363,467 | $232,301,900 | $354,000,382 |
| (R02) Total Rev-Own Sources | $41,767,008 | $105,812,952 | $199,750,051 | $296,280,649 |
| (R04) Gen Rev-Own Sources | $33,248,119 | $79,351,850 | $141,874,723 | $270,097,354 |
| (R05) Total Taxes | $27,365,174 | $55,167,544 | $98,716,033 | $186,014,884 |
| (R08) Tot Sales & Gr Rec Tax | $8,199,407 | $18,580,996 | $33,848,493 | $53,486,830 |
| (R16) Public Utility Tax (T15) | $294,858 | $1,030,950 | $1,950,005 | $3,695,916 |
| (R22) Motor Veh & Oper Lic | $385,521 | $1,136,188 | $1,782,663 | $2,953,677 |
| United States, Nominal | 1978 | 1988 | 1998 | 2008 |
| (R01) Total Revenue | $371,607,090 | $884,116,964 | $1,720,889,368 | $2,660,474,770 |
| (R02) Total Rev-Own Sources | $302,014,685 | $766,515,234 | $1,465,841,272 | $2,179,094,747 |
| (R04) Gen Rev-Own Sources | $246,368,090 | $609,159,848 | $1,110,713,868 | $1,944,398,462 |
| (R05) Total Taxes | $193,642,079 | $435,740,719 | $773,963,195 | $1,330,411,772 |
| (R08) Tot Sales & Gr Rec Tax | $67,596,273 | $156,452,331 | $274,883,406 | $448,688,515 |
| (R16) Public Utility Tax (T15) | $4,676,355 | $10,500,598 | $16,796,302 | $28,130,244 |
| (R22) Motor Veh & Oper Lic | $5,166,902 | $10,260,423 | $16,142,504 | $23,514,937 |
So total tax revenue to the US more than doubled between 1978 and 1988 - from $194 billion to $435 billion - an increase of $241 billion over the 10-year period or, averaging more than 10% per year.
- 1978 to 1988 - total increase of $241 billion or almost 150% (Reagan years)
- 1988 to 1998 - total increase of $339 billion, but from $435 bil. to start so 77% increase (Clinton years)
- 1998 to 2008 - total increase of $556 billion, from $774 bil - to $1.3 trillion (72% increase - GW Bush years including tax cuts).
Let's look at our 90's rates of increase in detail.
| United States, Nominal | 1989 | 1994 | 1998 |
| (R01) Total Revenue | $953,802,436 | $1,331,492,151 | $1,720,889,368 |
| (R02) Total Rev-Own Sources | $827,978,704 | $1,115,999,862 | $1,465,841,272 |
| (R04) Gen Rev-Own Sources | $660,305,498 | $884,998,088 | $1,110,713,868 |
| (R05) Total Taxes | $468,890,917 | $625,528,938 | $773,963,195 |
| (R08) Tot Sales & Gr Rec Tax | $166,335,997 | $223,628,301 | $274,883,406 |
| (R16) Public Utility Tax (T15) | $10,761,126 | $15,062,585 | $16,796,302 |
| (R22) Motor Veh & Oper Lic | $10,878,403 | $13,821,977 | $16,142,504 |
So in the 5 years of 1989 to 1994, the increase was $165 billion. In the following 4 years (Republican Congress) the increase was $148 billion. This is an average of $33 billion a year increase from 1989 to 1994, and $37 billion a year from 1994 to 1998 - or a difference of approximately 10% faster growth each year for the last 4 years - with the Republican Congress and - let's give credit where credit is due - the good job of President Clinton in managing all Federal programs. Considering that vast dislocations occurred in the US economy during this period - everybody did a good job!
And the Bush tax cuts don't seem to have produced reduced revenue, nor did the Reagan tax cuts. Au contraire, if the Reagan decade performance (150% increase) was repeated, the current Federal Deficit would be half paid for!
This information came from pulling charts out of the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.
You really don't want to see the fraction of revenue as percentage of personal income, do you? 20 +24 = 44. Percent that is - between the state of California and the Federal Government. See, they can leave all kinds of stuff out, but that's the overall revenue bottom line that represents percentage of income - or GDP, etc. Add that to your personal debt, and maybe you can see what people are talking about. Or not.
This article by Economics professor Walter Williams, a true profile of courage, is entitled "Politicians Exploit Economic Ignorance." What is so tragic is that "liberals" always want to raise taxes and fees - any form of income. But they end up getting diminishing returns by using that method. It's down in black-and-white. Just as in the real world, there's a "right price" for a product that will produce maximum sales and profit, there's a "right tax" level too. And over 44% - is TOO MUCH. The US is NOT at 27% of personal income paid to government revenue. It is at 44% for all those who work, or higher. It's simple math, using the factual figures.
