Well that was more or less my initial point. Yes from 1950, spending has increased but it did so by introducing beneficial things like Medicare or Medicaid, and vastly more people under Social Security because of demographic transition. So it wasn't a bad thing. And after 1975, spending didn't increase much or at all. While it could and probably should have, to bring in more equality and improve quality of life for everyone.
But why should taxes scale GDP per capita? Growth means more production, controlled for inflation. Are citizens getting several times more services and goods from the government. It certainly doesn't seem like it. We dont have 10x more teachers per student, 10x more police, or 10x more public roads per capita.
Because if GDP per capita increases cost for services as well as number of required services increases.
Take a car analogy, if the GDP per capita increases such that the number of people who can afford a car doubles, the government will have to invest more in roads. Moreover the expectations to the quality of the roads will likely increase as well. In other words if more stuff gets done in a country your more likely to night more infrastructure and services to support it.
how does that make sense. My claim is that the government is collecting more taxes than ever. 1,000% more than in 1940 (controlling for inflation). I ask why we are getting so little for that.
We should be demanding more from our government! Instead, one side is trying to tear it down, and purposely fights to make government worse so people want to tear it down.
I think that framing is close. One side doesn't think the government can do better. I'm usually in that camp. I don't think the federal government can do better. It is too far from the voters for oversight. The country is too big and diverse for what it is trying to do.
My dream government is that of Switzerland, which keeps the purse close to the people.
