U.S. Government shuts down.

[Jester]

Federal. Federal. Federal. But we also pay State, County, locality, sales, service, and excise taxes.

No, no, no.

To quote from your own source, literally appearing *directly below* this stalwart disavowal:

"In 2013, Americans will pay $2.76 trillion in federal taxes and $1.45 trillion in state taxes, for a total tax bill of $4.22 trillion, or 29.4 percent of income."

Just shy of 30%. All included. Even according to anti-tax lobbyists.

If we go with the tax foundations calculations, 108/265 is close to 30%. The average(middle middle class) US citizen has about 1/3rd of their earnings taken from them. You'd need to be above average, in the 4th quintile (upper middle) in order to be taxed at the 50% or more overall rate.

The middle 20% pay about 25% of their income, all told. The poor pay less, the rich more. Nobody pays more than 50% - top marginal rates don't go anywhere near that, and the only way you'd get that is living in a high tax state, with no deductible income, a salary rather than capital gains, and to be very high income, such that you paid the 39.6% federal marginal tax rate on the vast majority of your income.

Then also, in my mind, I don't think we want to be comparable to Denmark (where the avg. tax is 35%). When I think of entrepreneurial growth, I don't think Denmark.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it does not match Danish reality. Denmark is an exceptionally free market, entrepreneurial economy, even for its highly competitive Northern European context.

Denmark ranks no. 9. The US is 10. And that's even considering a dismal "fiscal freedom" score, because this is the Heritage institute, and they think government is the devil.

I'd rather be comparable to Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is a city-state, with 100% of its territory being a highly urbanized financial supercenter attached to the world's largest manufacturing zone, whose miserable GDP/capita and repressive goverment policies are conveniently not measured in Hong Kong, because they all happen in China. If you could turn the Midwest into NYC, the US could all be Hong Kong. But you can't.

If instead, we allow people to choose how to spend their own money, then only the necessary things get purchased.

There is a reasonable libertarian argument that people have the *right* to spend their money however they want. (I don't agree, because I don't think income is separable from the external economic context - everyone is not Robinson Crusoe.) But there is absolutely no argument, theoretical or empirical, that suggests people only buy "the necessary things," whatever that's supposed to mean. People buy all sorts of stupid crap, and the richer, the stupider.

Services provided (hours worked) over what population growth (recipients).

That makes no sense. Services provided is not the same as hours worked - that's the whole concept of productivity. If productivity can only increase by decreasing the population or increasing the number of hours worked, then no wonder you have such a pessimistic view - you've defined productivity gains out of existence.

How about these?

GDP contribution is a poor measure, because much (most?) of what government does is either not intended to increase GDP (military), or increases GDP in ways that are critical but almost unmeasurable (the judiciary, or education). I don't have easy answers about how to eff the ineffable. But then, I'm not the one saying the US government should be radically scaled back on the basis of its low productivity.

-Jester