Hauser's law, that states that federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, would suggest that tax levels are similar as a percent of per capita GDP.
Local, State, and Federal = ~32 to 42% GDP over last 30 years. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_brief.php?brief.... Defense for example is all over the map, 7% under Reagan down to 3.45% with Clintion then bumped under Bush to amost 6% and then back down under Obama.
PS: US tax code is designed around talking points so people can support all sorts of things. But at the end of the day Total government spending is what's important not what you call it.
Thanks for editing to point out that is Local+State+Federal. sien's point and "Hauser's law" is about Federal revenue and specifically how Federal tax revenue doesn't seem to respond to policy changes in the marginal Federal income tax rates as you might expect. They are both good metrics to consider at different times, for example sometimes you ignore certain classes of taxes and spending (like local/property taxes which are largely for K-12 education) when you want to focus on welfare spending, which is 95%+ Federal.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S Even then federal outlays go from 10 to 25% post WW2. There is little support for a law. People love to pretend marginal rates are the hole story while ignoring tax breaks, social security, gas taxes, etc. it's a political tug of war and positions hate to make things clear cut.
Ex: hand outs in the form of very targeted tax breaks are rarely considered spending even as they subsidize industries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law