When is humor no longer funny?

[Jester]

The rate related to GDP has remained flat at about 9%. I meant that the amounts of taxes levied have increased due to economic expansion, while the tax rates across the board have been lowered. With a constant time frame of say the 50 years from 1965 to 2005, the federal taxes levied have gone from 620 Billion to 2300 Billion, which is about 370%. The GDP(adjusted for inflation) in 1965 was about $3214 Billion, and in 2005 it was about $10878 Billion which is about a 338% rise. This means that the cost of government (when you include debt) has grown over the past 50 year faster than that same 370%, which translates to on average 6% to 10% per year depending on which numbers you use. There is then a 32% (over 50 years) faster growth in revenue than GDP.

Perhaps in the super-long view, tax revenue has increased faster than GDP growth. I would expect that to be the case, since, as America pulls further and further from the subsistence level, the surplus wealth that can be taxed away without breaking the backbone of the economy grows larger and larger. The growth is in any case not terribly great, especially considering how grotesquely the debt has grown.

However, we have now moved from the effect of the Bush tax cuts to tracking GDP over 50 years. Is there any evidence that what Bush has done has increased revenue? I don't think there is, at least not in what I've seen. Quite the contrary.

Another question then is to where has all this extra money gone? Poverty remains pretty constant over the past 50 years (source), and inflation has been well below the growth rate of government.

Assets? Welfare improvements? Improved lifespan? The average American is better off in many ways that are not directly reflected in GDP in 2005 than 1965.

The textbook was "America's Great Depression" by Rothbard. I have and would also recommend "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman and "Human Action" by Ludvig Von Mises.

Thought so. Not to disparage the work of what are all excellent economists with interesting ideas, but there does seem to be a rather Austrian tilt to all this, which is not exactly representative of economics as a whole, especially where the Great Depression is concerned.

-Jester