Substantial relative to what came before, but not even close to substantial in terms of what @Socrates has been referring to. Consider that this line of discussion derives from his claim that Islamic countries are hamstrung by shariah law, which forbids various forms of taxation (including income tax). The fact is that the sort of substantial government growth we see in the 20th century, financed by such increased taxation, occurred after industrialisation. The idea that income tax and the size of government that developed in the 20th century would be needed to make industrialisation work is therefore blatantly incorrect.
And obviously, the expenditures of 19th century governments are indeed insubstantial when compared to the expenditures of 20th century (post-income tax) governments. Hence my statement that (by the standard that Socrates set) government expenditures on industrialisation were, in the 19th century, not substantial. I repeat that a government that is much smaller than the sort we see develop in the 20th century can demonstrably oversee industrialisation. I further repeat that no income tax is required to facilitate industrialisation.
Consider also that the Meiji era itself only saw income taxation fairly late, and then only as a temporary war measure. Permanent income tax was only introduced in Japan in 1920 (after the Meiji era). Now I ask: had Japan not introduced an income tax in 1920... would its Meiji-era developments have retro-actively failed? Of course not.
And @Socrates, I see that you still refuse to admit to basic causality. You wring yourself in every conceivable shape to avoid having to admit that your initial claims don't stand up to scrutiny. You again move the goalposts, and now seem bent on pretending that industrialisation didn't happen before the government reached the magical "we take 10% of the GDP" threshold. Your once-ardent claim that an income tax is indispensible is suddenly absent, now that it's proven to be nonsense. How quaint. Now, we really are done. I refuse to run after moving goalposts.
Firstly, the income tax in Japan was first implemented in 1887, halfway through the Meiji period and necessary to sustain industrialization to later become a mainly industrial economy. I could dig up more numbers but frankly I am tired of proving you wrong.
Secondly, just because you are not bright enough to follow the distinction between a pre-modern agricultural economy of ~5% state spending and early industrial powers 10-15% spending doesn't mean it is nonsense. I have not moved any goalposts - you brought in the later post-war 40% spending levels I never referenced. You were just super imposing your preconceived ideology of governments as parasites and couldn't follow things.
I will respond to John's lengthy post when I have time to give it the respectful response it deserves, but I am done with your rudeness, incorrect numbers and bad faith.