U.S. Has Most Progressive Tax System for OECD-24
| B. Percentage shares of richest 10% | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Share of taxes of the richest 10% | 2. Share of market income of the richest 10% | 3. Ratio of shares for richest 10% (1/2) | |
| Australia | 36.8 | 28.6 | 1.29 |
| Austria | 28.5 | 26.1 | 1.1 |
| Belgium | 25.4 | 27.1 | 0.94 |
| Canada | 35.8 | 29.3 | 1.22 |
| Czech Republic | 34.3 | 29.4 | 1.17 |
| Denmark | 26.2 | 25.7 | 1.02 |
| Finland | 32.3 | 26.9 | 1.2 |
| France | 28 | 25.5 | 1.1 |
| Germany | 31.2 | 29.2 | 1.07 |
| Iceland | 21.6 | 24 | 0.9 |
| Ireland | 39.1 | 30.9 | 1.26 |
| Italy | 42.2 | 35.8 | 1.18 |
| Japan | 28.5 | 28.1 | 1.01 |
| Korea | 27.4 | 23.4 | 1.17 |
| Luxembourg | 30.3 | 26.4 | 1.15 |
| Netherlands | 35.2 | 27.5 | 1.28 |
| New Zealand | 35.9 | 30.3 | 1.19 |
| Norway | 27.4 | 28.9 | 0.95 |
| Poland | 28.3 | 33.9 | 0.84 |
| Slovak Republic | 32 | 28 | 1.14 |
| Sweden | 26.7 | 26.6 | 1 |
| Switzerland | 20.9 | 23.5 | 0.89 |
| United Kingdom | 38.6 | 32.3 | 1.2 |
| United States | 45.1 | 33.5 | 1.35 |
| OECD-24 | 31.6 | 28.4 | 1.11 |
The table above is from Scott Hodge at The Tax Foundation and shows:
"The share of taxes paid by the richest 10 percent of households, the share of all market income earned by that group, and the ratio of what that 10 percent of households pays in taxes versus what they earn as a share of the nation's income.
The table then adjusts for the underlying allocation of income by showing the ratio of income taxes paid to the share of income earned by the top decile in each country. The ratio for U.S. households is 1.35, far greater than the ratio of taxes to income in any other country. Even in the three countries with a comparable distribution of income, the ratio of taxes to income was less, 1.18 in Italy, 0.84 in Poland, and 1.20 in the U.K.
Interestingly, countries with top personal income tax rates that are higher than in the U.S., such as Germany, France, or Sweden, have ratios that are closer to 1 to 1. Meaning, the share of the tax burden paid by the richest decile in those countries is roughly equal to their share of the nation's income. By contrast, we prefer to have the wealthiest households in this country pay a share of the tax burden that is one-third greater than their share of the nation's income."
90 Comments:
Wait... you mean all that leftist rhetoric about the rich not paying their fair share is a bunch of hooey?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think this is very interesting data. Is there anything similar to this available for the top 1% of income earners?
The link does not work. Does the analysis include all taxes as a proper analysis should? If not, it should. Taxes are taxes. If so, do the other countries have state, local, and Social Security taxes comparable to the U.S.? My state, local and Social Security withholding taxes this year ($1700) are almost as much as my federal taxes ($1900), and these taxes are either neutral (state) or regressive (SS).
Amandeep,
I would perform the analysis by eliminating the top and bottom 10% and then compare the total tax burdens between the remaining 80% in quartiles (including governmental fees such as license plates, gasoline taxes, telephone taxes, and cable and Internet taxes). These taxes could possibly impact those at the bottom more than those at the top.
Were #1, were #1. Is this a great country, or what?
ironically, what this shows is that the US is a fantastic tax haven so long as you are not an american.
the lower tax percentages for the wealthy overseas are largely a function of the fact that they are not taxes on global income. if you are french and keep your money in a US brokerage account or investment fund, you pay no tax.
i know a great many wealthy europeans who pay much lower overall tax rates than their american peers. once you are rich enough to live off investment income, europe is much more attractive in terms of taxes than the US.
far from being "progressive" their tax system creates an incredibly stratified society and destroys class mobility. the very rich pay low taxes. where you get killed is if you are earning money in country and get above upper middle class. suddenly, the tax rates are confiscatory. this keep you from ever joining the seriously rich and destroys class mobility.
far from being paragons of fairness and equality, these systems build a virtually insurmountable wall around "richistan" that keeps everyone out.
the whole "european progressives" thing is a farce. it's defense of privilege masquerading as "egalite et fraternite"...
Hydra-
It's "We're No. 1, We're No. 1."
Dr. Perry does not like simple English punctuation errors in post copy.
Also, while some regard the Tax Foundation as catamites for plutocrats, I do not. I would be shocked--shocked!--if the Tax Foundation selectively chose what taxes to consider in making this table.
Fascinating data. I wonder if the US has a higher percentage of people with effective 0% tax that other countries (I hear so much about that 40-50% of citizens that pay zero income tax).
Can we see a similar table that includes the effect of consumption taxes as well?
Here is a relevant Tax Foundation link
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html
Here's the corrected link from above. He claims to use both personal income and payroll taxes.
And Walt has a good point about state and local taxes. For all the hype about federal spending, most of the growth in taxes as a percentage of GDP has been at the state and local level over the last 40 years, finally drawing even with the feds this decade. You'd think we'd draw down federal taxes as the state/local revenues go up, but no, the feds keep grabbing at the pie too. While I'm sure those other countries have their own forms of state and local taxes too, I assume that they're more centralized and so the addition of state and local would probably only make the picture worse for high-income taxpayers here.
Thanks for that link sprewell but what I didn't see in this 'most of the growth in taxes as a percentage of GDP has been at the state and local level over the last 40 years' is how much of that increase might be due to unfunded 'federal' mandates?
Then again the federal government lies to us about the rate of inflation so not getting info on unfunded mandates isn't really a suprise...
sprewell-
"so the addition of state and local would probably only make the picture worse for high-income taxpayers here."
man oh man is that true.
one of the reasons i was so eager to move out of california was its state income tax.
most of my income is in the form of long term capital gains.
this meant that i was paying california more than i was paying the feds.
while this sounds counter intuitive, thing about it this way:
if you manage it well, you take your losses as short term and your gains as long term.
federally, the rates are different. i pay 15% on gains, and write off losses at 39% (assuming i have regular income to shield). thus, if i have $100 in LT gains and $38 in ST losses, i pay no net tax is i have that much regular income to shield.
not so in CA where the tax and the write off are both 10.7%.
this drove my state tax liabilities to be higher than my federal ones.
I second the comment by morganvich about state taxes - I live in NJ and work in NY.
It doesn't matter how frequently the canard about SS taxes being regressive is repeated, it completely misrepresents the situation. Unlike federal income taxes, SS taxes entitle one to benefits, because the benefit is based on the wages on which taxes are paid. The formula provides less benefits as your taxable wages increase. IIRC correctly, if you are at the median wage, you get about 33% of your final earnings at retirement. At the wage base, it drops to about 22%. If you are a low-paid worker, it's about 40%. The benefits are highly "progressive". If you make above the wage base ($106,800 for 2011) you have no additional tax, but you get no additional benefit.
This table doesn't tell the whole story. Why is everyone's share of taxes supposed to be equal to their income?
Somebody with a greater portion of wealth has a lot more at stake than the poor. The rich benefit a lot more from national defense because it protects their investments. The rich also benefit from education and income security because the educated and secure are less likely to rob them than the uneducated and hungy.
The richest 10% feel less of an impact when they are taxed at a greater rate because they have marginally more. That money is going towards a boat and a vacation, not necessities like food and clothing.
Greg Mankiw has an interesting post on his blog regarding the OECD study that produced this table:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-nation-has-most-progressive-tax.html
"The rich benefit a lot more from national defense because it protects their investments."
Really? Explain how the US military protected the investments of the "rich" in Venezuela, Bolivia or Cuba for us.
"The rich also benefit from education and income security because the educated and secure are less likely to rob them than the uneducated and hungy."
Ever been to a college campus or a Democrat party political rally? The "educated and secure" spend almost all of their time on schemes to rob the wealthy. As for the "uneducated and hungry", the rich, by creating wealth, are their only real hope. The poor in free market economies generally live better than the rich in socialist countries.
"The richest 10% feel less of an impact when they are taxed at a greater rate because they have marginally more. That money is going towards a boat and a vacation, not necessities like food and clothing."
Yeah, and the purchase of that boat, second home or vacation doesn't create any jobs, right? For the socialist dirt bag it is never about equity or "social justice", it's about power. Purchasing one man's support with the wealth stolen from another. If the rich have marginally more, what concern is that of yours? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", is simply a statement in support of slavery. You have absolutely no right to enslave another human being to your needs and desires. We fought that war, and if need be we'll fight it again.
I don't see any mention of VAT in this...
Che,
Ever been to a college campus or a Democrat party political rally? The "educated and secure" spend almost all of their time on schemes to rob the wealthy."
You're so right on there. I went to a John Kerry rally in 2004 and was amazed by the thuggery. It was all about taking things from whoever was supposedly screwing over special interest group X.
Contrast with GOP events that generally focus on patriotism and achievement. Night and day.
Kevin Peterman
You are repeating a tired argiment that never seems to go away, no matter how many times it is refuted.
I was prepared to respond to your comment at some length, but now I see that Che is dead has said it all for me. Please reread his comment carefully, and pretend it's from me.
The failure of your argument is found in your comment about boats and vacations:
"The richest 10% feel less of an impact when they are taxed at a greater rate because they have marginally more. That money is going towards a boat and a vacation, not necessities like food and clothing."
The idea that those with high income shouldn't be able to buy a boat, because everyone can't buy a boat, is just silly. You suggest that the boat money should be taken from them by government for some other purpose. Perhaps to pay unemployment benefits to the newly unemployed boat builders.
The top 10% don't have marginally more, they have proportionally more, and fair taxation would require them to pay proportionally more.
If I make 20% more than you, and pay 20% more taxes, how is that not fair? What business is it of yours how I spend the money I'm allowed to keep?
Do you really believe you, or anyone else should decide for others how their earnings are spent?
You are promoting class envy, nothing more.
"This table doesn't tell the whole story. Why is everyone's share of taxes supposed to be equal to their income?"
Did you really mean to write "equal", or did you mean "proportional"?
Which income groups see the largest return in benefits from government expenditures for the tax dollars they pay. A 2007 Tax Foundation study (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/2282.html) reported on that very issue. Using data from 2004 (the latest available at the time of the study) researchers found that, considering local, state and federal tax and expenditures, those in the bottom quintile of income distribution received back $8.21 in benefits from government expenditures for each tax dollar they paid. Those in the middle quintile received $1.30 in expenditure benefits per tax dollar paid, while those in the top income quintile received $0.41 in expenditure benefits per tax dollar paid.
"La izquierda pretende que el culpable del conflicto no es el que codicia los bienes ajenos sino el que defiende los propios." -- Escolios a un Texto Implícito: Selección
(The left claims that the guilty party in a conflict is not the one who covets another’s goods but the one who defends his own.)
OT, but this real estate development would create a lot of job in the Los Angeles area, and bring money into the USA. But Beverly Hills residents want it blocked.
Battle over mega-mansion in Benedict Canyon
Mark Lacter • March 22 2011 7:45 AM
Well, we've just discovered what too much is in the uber-wealthy 90210 community: It's a planned 85,000-square foot compound that includes a 42,681-square-foot main house, a 27,000-square-foot "son's villa" (whatever that is), a 4,400-square-foot guest house, a 5,300-square-foot staff quarters, and a 2,700-square-foot gatehouse. Nearby residents are in an uproar over the project. From the LAT:
"It's commercial-scale construction, like building a Wal-Mart in the heart of a quiet residential neighborhood," said Martha Karsh, who lives with her husband, Bruce, just east of the site. In an area known more for gated estates than block parties, the controversy has so far united more than 150 residents. Through e-mails, house gatherings and phone calls, opponents have built support for their cause. Next, they plan to mount a door-to-door campaign and launch a website.
They seem to have a worthy adversary, one with deep pockets and expensive lawyers and who may even be a senior Saudi prince. Instead of disclosing his identity, the owner has created a special business, Tower Lane Properties Inc., to purchase three adjoining plots for $12 million. A team of lawyers, architects, intermediaries and sales brokers have been hired to manage the project, and all have signed secrecy agreements. "We're not trying to be deceptive," said attorney Marc E. Petas, a Tower Lane Properties representative in Los Angeles. "It's just a matter of maintaining privacy."
The president of Tower Lane Properties is a former brother-in-law to Saudi King Abdullah and uncle to Prince Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz al Saud, one of King Abdullah's sons. So we're talking really big money, even by Benedict Canyon standards. Speaking of big money, Bruce Karsh is co-founder of Oaktree Capital Management and named by the Business Journal as one of the 50 wealthiest Angelenos, with a net worth of just under $1 billion.
"Really? Explain how the US military protected the investments of the "rich" in Venezuela, Bolivia or Cuba for us."
The rich make money from capitalism - moreso than the poor. Any threat to that (i.e. Cuba) would warrant protection.
"Ever been to a college campus or a Democrat party political rally?"
Yes. Unfortunately.
"As for the "uneducated and hungry", the rich, by creating wealth, are their only real hope."
I agree... in a sense. The rich carry that burden of hope. The rich could just pay wages to the laborers, however I think it's a much better investment for everybody to pay for education. The current US system dictates that is in the form of income tax.
I knew that boat comment was going to get you guys riled up. You assume this is a pissing match about socialism. It's not. We need to agree as a society that it's not ok to let people starve. Beyond that, reward hard work and ingenuity. Absolutely.
My point is that wealth and power carries responsibility and those with more have more to lose.
"Did you really mean to write "equal", or did you mean "proportional"?"
I meant "equal to their share of income". The chart makes it appear that a ratio of 1 (or perhaps lower) is the best option. I don't think that is necessarily the case.
"I meant "equal to their share of income"."
I often see the word "proportional" used to convey this concept.
"We need to agree as a society..."
Now there's a collectivist phrase if I ever heard one!
"...that it's not ok to let people starve. Beyond that, reward hard work and ingenuity. Absolutely."
I wasn't aware that people in the US still starved, but I guess anything is possible. One way to reward people, as you refer to it, might be to allow them to keep there own earnings which is, after all, their property. At the very worst, if some of it is to be taken from them, a flat tax rate rather than the progressive system now in place, would seem most fair. Unless, that is, for some reason you think people who earn more and have more, through hard work and ingenuity, don't deserve to keep it.
rich-
if you pay the max SS tax every year, it actually provides negative nominal returns to you.
you are literally paying the government to hold your money.
this is a good analysis.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/01/social_security-2.html
far from being regressive, SS is astoundingly progressive. it is actually outright theft from those paying the full boat.
kevin-
"The rich make money from capitalism - moreso than the poor. Any threat to that (i.e. Cuba) would warrant protection."
this is another tired old misframing of the issue.
sure, the rich make more, but the poor make more too.
would you rather be a poor american or a poor venezeulan?
the US poor are richer even that the european poor.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/30/study2.gif
our poor live in bigger houses that the european middle class and own washers and dryers and cars that even the european middle class, much less the poor do not have.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/01/eu-vs-usa-part-iv.html
why? capitalism.
the sort of socialist equality you seem to champion is basically clamoring to have $5 and the rich $6 instead of having $10 and the rich $20.
if you want to hold back the poor, redistriubte wealth. that's what holds then down. it shrinks the pie for everyone. a bigger slice of a smaller pie is still usually less pie, and almost always so in the long run.
don't forget that the top 10% do the lions share of investing and therefore job and wealth creation.
taking money from the most productive part of society and giving it through the least after losing a pile to the government can only lead one place: stagnation.
Speaking of SS, I see North Dakota, those eager-beavers with rosy cheecks, is one of the worst offender states in the nation in granting SS diability, a program soaked through with fakery, according to the WSJ, front page. Puerto Rico beats them out for the very top spot of abusers.
Add that to surging food stamp rolls in North Dakota.
This is a state that nets about $6k per person net federal spending over taxes. Every year.
I think ND is gaming the country. dudes. Gaming and winning.
Actually, Kevin, here's an idea for you: Since high earnings and wealth are a direct indicator of how much a person contributes to the well being of others, perhaps the highest earners should be taxed at the lowest rate, so more of their earnings could contribute directly to the benefit of others, and the lowest earners should be taxed at the highest rates, as they demonstrate by their low earnings their unwillingness or inability to contribute their fair share to the general welfare.
What do you think?
Several countries listed on the chart, Poland in particular, seem to be using this method.
Ques: ""Really? Explain how the US military protected the investments of the "rich" in Venezuela, Bolivia or Cuba for us."
Ans: "The rich make money from capitalism - moreso than the poor. Any threat to that (i.e. Cuba) would warrant protection."
You seem to have misunderstood the reference. The governments of those three countries have all nationalized (stolen) private property. The US military provided no protection.
oops.
those last 2 posts from "bridget" are actually from me, "morganovich".
she was using my computer and must have logged in to google groups.
benji-
it would create jobs is i paid people to follow you around yelling "learn some economics" too.
you cannot support anything and everything that creates jobs just on that basis.
Morgan Frank-
I would take issue with your last comment, but first I would have to understand it.
A guy wants to build a huge house and his sniveling neighbors don't want it. Property rights?
His house is in code, meets zoning. Somehow his neighbors, all of them fabulously wealthy from economic activity, want such activity to stop if it just slightly detracts from their perceived quality of life.
We are in a recession in L.A. This is jobs and profits for homebuilders and allied industries.
Like I aways say, "Everyone becomes a greenie-weenie when the rendering plant is proposed for their neighborhood."
Just ask Republicans in Florida--they have competely banned oil drilling anywhere off the coast of that state. Led by Jeb Bush.
As for me, I love real estate development, and oil drilling. Bring it on, boys, bring it on.
"the sort of socialist equality you seem to champion"
Don't even try to pin "socialism" on me. Unbelievable. My posts had to do with tax policy and social values, not ownership of production. FYI, I am pro-capitalism. I also am willing to pay a greater % of taxes than the poor if it means some kid gets a better education and three meals a day.
"I wasn't aware that people in the US still starved"
I hate that this one is true.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/stats_graphs.htm
“Very low food security” where “prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation.”
Hmmm, I smell a rat here with this drivel from the parasites financed by extorted tax dollars at the USDA: Food Security in the United States
Apparently the USDA figures supposedly responsible adults can't find a way to fend for themselves...
"I also am willing to pay a greater % of taxes than the poor if it means some kid gets a better education and three meals a day"...
Hmmm, do you expect others should do that same silly thing?
Why should I have to help support some kid's education and meals?
How about the 'supposedly' responsible adults that spawned these kids?
What are they doing while their kids leech off of our earnings?
benji-
as ever, you are missing the point.
you were arguing for it as a job creator. that is the wrong argument.
i didn't see anything about zoning, property rights, or anything else in your original post.
(and i note that, as ever, you provide no actual data about it being in zoning etc, just unsubstantiated claims that you certainly did not make in your first post)
just job creation.
that was your only argument.
it's the same bad logic that drove decisions like kelo vs new london.
had you made a property rights argument, that would be different, but you didn't and now you are trying to pretend that you did.
my point was to give you a ridiculous example to show you how bad your logic was.
hiring people to follow you around and yell "learn to think logically" creates jobs too. will you support my new program to make that happen?
kevin-
when you make arguments about the rich benefiting more from defense and education etc and then talk about the deliberate redistribution of wealth, that veers pretty close to socialism.
you seem to be trying to use a very strict definition, in which case, you may be definitionally correct, but, if as is common practice, we call countries like france and sweden socialist, then you fit the definition quite well.
it may be "market socialism" or "social democracy", but it's still socialism in common parlance even in those countries, so i think your outrage seems pretty misguided.
comments like this:
"The richest 10% feel less of an impact when they are taxed at a greater rate because they have marginally more. That money is going towards a boat and a vacation, not necessities like food and clothing."
are extraordinarily socialist. you advocate taking based on ability and giving based on need.
how would you describe such a redistributionist system that decides for me if i have "more than i need"?
ron has already comment on "we need to agree as a society" and it's collectivist overtones. those sort of comments almost always come from someone who wants to give my money to someone else.
despite your protestations to the contrary, you sure don't sound like any of the capitalists i know...
let's flip the question around:
so it's OK for the rich to pay more for education (that they are less likely to use) or defense, but you'd go nuts if i charged you more for corn flakes because you are richer than my average customer. you'd feel gouged. why is government different from every other good and service?
"Hmmm, do you expect others should do that same silly thing?"
YES!!! It is in their best interest!
"Why should I have to help support some kid's education and meals?
So they can become productive members of society and add value to your retirement investments. (And pay for your social security. Just kidding)
"How about the 'supposedly' responsible adults that spawned these kids? What are they doing while their kids leech off of our earnings?"
That's a tough one, and I'm afraid I don't have a solid answer. 1) Reversible long term birth control such as IUDs to prevent further children until they are off welfare. 2) Job training and adult education. 3) I give up - welfare may cheaper than the alternative.
The Mankiw post that Bill linked to above has more info from the purported author of the original OECD chapter. He claims to include all direct taxes, presumably state and local too, but not sales taxes or indirect stuff like the employer portion of the SS payroll tax.
Kevin, so let me get this straight, the less well-off should be able to rob those with higher income through the govt, otherwise they'll do it by breaking into people's houses? Let's try that, I bet they wouldn't be able to get past the first ring of private security the rich would hire. The fact is the govt politicos that you put so much trust in talk about "helping the poor," all while stealing billions and funneling it to their cronies. In the end, this makes the poor much worse off, as morganovich points out, by slowing the rate of growth and making the entire country much poorer.
Chavez expropriated money from the rich to "feed and educate" the poor and what do they have now? A broken country that is worse off than before, a shithole that actually has to import oil despite sitting on tons of oil reserves.There's a reason why the poor here is much better off than the rich in most countries, it's because we didn't take as much from the rich and productive. Further, you seem to think the only way to "feed the poor" is by raising taxes, how about cutting spending? We spend trillions on crap that isn't worth much at all, that's where we need do something.
Frankly, seeing how worthless the Republicans have been on cutting spending- $61 billion in cuts? A $1.6 trillion deficit and they're cutting less than $100 billion?!!- I'm starting to think the only solution is exit. The worthless voters who pay no taxes can keep voting themselves more and more of other people's money and it won't matter, because the actual taxpayers will just leave the country. I used to think this type of "going Galt" scenario was fanciful, but I'm increasingly starting to think it's likely in the coming decades.
So if we had an infinite rate of growth, the poor would be rich and everything would be perfect.
morganovich,
"i pay 15% on gains, and write off losses at 39% (assuming i have regular income to shield). thus, if i have $100 in LT gains and $38 in ST losses, i pay no net tax is i have that much regular income to shield.
How is that fair? How is that proportional? How is that a flat tax?
far from being "progressive" and far from being paragons of fairness and equality
Well, which is it?
I'll reiterate my earlier point. Wealth and power carry responsibility and those with more have more to lose.
It's "We're No. 1, We're No. 1."
Dr. Perry does not like simple English punctuation errors in post copy.
=================================
I apologize for the speller on my droid that makes retroactive changes. Eventually I will learn to compensate by double checking the damn thing after I'm finished.
I do know how to spell and punctuate, but my arthritic typing is atrocious, and I'm lazy besides.
There must be spell checkers for browsers, can anybody point me to one?
Really? Explain how the US military protected the investments of the "rich" in Venezuela, Bolivia or Cuba for us.
=================================
Maybe they should have kept their investments at home, generating all that trickle down for the poor.
These are smart people, what ever made them think it was the governmnts job to protect offshore investments? Let them them take their grievance to the UN.
Seriously, just because the government fails toprotect on some occasions doesn't obviate Kevins argument. The rich have a lot more at stake, and not just in income. their share of capital is even greater than their share of income.
The evils of income redistribution aside, I see a more and more complex technology for living developing, which fewer and fewer will be equipped to cope with.
If we are seriously prepared to just let die, or kill off,those who can't hack it we may need to reconsider those death committees.
Or we have vast versions of something like Sao Paulo with vast slums of squatters srrounding our comfortable gated communities, where we sit around an talk about how well off our riches have made the poor.
"The rich have a lot more at stake, and not just in income. their share of capital is even greater than their share of income."
Finally, someone with some sense.
""we need to agree as a society" and it's collectivist overtones.
I'd say more democratic overtones.
Ok, I'm off to read the next post. See you in those comments.
"oops.
those last 2 posts from "bridget" are actually from me, "morganovich"."
Ya, sure. Why should we believe that?
I guess the broken shift key is a clue.
Too bad. I was pleased that a new commentator was writing sensible comments. :-)
Kevin
"I also am willing to pay a greater % of taxes than the poor if it means some kid gets a better education and three meals a day."
That is generous of you, and to be admired. There are many ways you can help provide for those things through personal donations to organizations of your choice, and if you don't care at all about efficiency, you can do as you proposed, and send extra money with your tax return.
However! Don't demand that everyone follow this example by using the force of government to rip donations out of peoples pockets.
"...it's not ok to let people starve."
Thanks for the link. Interesting statistics.
When you wrote the above, I pictured bodies in the streets, as this is the common use of the word "starvation". While some people may suffer from "very low food security" in the US, I don't believe anyone is actually allowed to die from lack of food.
I suspect your statement was designed more for its emotional impact than for being accurate.
"Why should I have to help support some kid's education and meals?
So they can become productive members of society and add value to your retirement investments."
Free public education has been available nationwide since the mid 19th century in the US, and in addition to the social programs of FDR in the 1930s, the explosion of "Great Society" programs in 1965, provided support for most other needs a person might have, including the three daily meals for the kids you are concerned about.
That being so, why is there still such a large need to help people become productive members of society? What's not working? I would think that once people became productive, they would in turn raise productive children, and these problems would eventually be solved, but it hasn't happenned in all this time.
"That's a tough one, and I'm afraid I don't have a solid answer. 1) Reversible long term birth control such as IUDs to prevent further children until they are off welfare. 2) Job training and adult education. 3) I give up - welfare may cheaper than the alternative."
The truth is, Kevin, the redistribution you recommend doesn't work as expected, and has terrible unintended consequences.
If you are sincere in your concerns, I would like to recommend this excellent book on the subject. It's a thoughtful and well written treatment of the welfare systems in the US. It might enhance your view somewhat.
"The rich have a lot more at stake, and not just in income. their share of capital is even greater than their share of income.
The rich are willing to pay for private protection rather than rely on incompetent government. Why should they pay more for something that's of no use to them?
"I see a more and more complex technology for living developing, which fewer and fewer will be equipped to cope with."
People said this exact same thing 50 yrs ago. 100 yrs ago. 150 yrs ago.
Keven said: "Finally, someone with some sense."
He likes you. Why am I not surprised. Birds of a feather.
morganovich
"it would create jobs is i paid people to follow you around yelling "learn some economics" too."
Listen, if you can set up something like this, I, for one, will be happy to pay a share. It might not get results, but it would satisfying to know it was happening.
The "learn to think logically" phrase could be used once in a while also. I have several other candidates in mind for this treatment if it can be arranged.
Let me know where to send my check.
"So they can become productive members of society and add value to your retirement investments"....
Well Kevin Peterman apparently you are refusing to learn the lessons of history: $9 Trillion Didn't End Poverty -- What to Do?...
Continued government extortion of its productive citizens in order to pander to its parasitic citizens is a non-stop loser...
While some people may suffer from "very low food security" in the US, I don't believe anyone is actually allowed to die from lack of food.
=============================
In the US, actual starvation is rare, but it does occur. Beyond that, there is a question of degree: people may not die of starvation directly and immediately, but later suffer early deaths as a result of poor diet.
Then ther is outside the US. If your theories are valid, they shoudl be valid everywhere. Yet we can see examples of places were governments do allow their citizens to die of actual starvation.
Since those governments are not stealing from the rich to support the poor, the rich ought to be generating plenty of trickle down.
I suppose the argument is that in those places the government is not stealing from the rich to supoort the poor, they just steal from everyone indiscriminately.
@ Kevin Peterman:
You missed the point.
This isn't a debate about whether the US ought to have a progressive tax structure.
It's an observation that we already have the most progressive tax structure, and that arguments that we "ought to be more enlightened like our European betters" are hogwash.
(Personally, I think your other argument is hogwash as well, but that's not the point of this post nor the data proffered for consideration.)
Cmon, $9 trillion is a drop in the bucket compared to the problems poverty presents. Of course it didn't solve poverty.
Probably, nothing will, but that doesn't improve the validity of this sorry excuse for an argument.
I'm not convinced it makes us any richer to be stumbling over street people and living in gated communities so we don't have to see the problems around us. It certainly does not make us any richer to take money out of our pocket and give it to them.
Whatever the answer turns out to be, it is going to be unpopular with someone.
So, the welfare system in the US is a big failure, yet poor people here are better off than poor people in other countries.
Lets give the capitalist system ALL the credit for that. After all, it is the capitalist system that made the money for all those useless programs possible.
We should have a tax structure less progressive like all those socialist European nations?
Why does our position on the scale of progressive tax structures inform us as to whether it is progressive enough or too progressive? Especially without considering how the money is spent.
"I see a more and more complex technology for living developing, which fewer and fewer will be equipped to cope with."
People said this exact same thing 50 yrs ago. 100 yrs ago. 150 yrs ago.
============================
Yes, and they were (partially) correct, each time.
Metaphorically speaking, 100 years ago a farm worker might live in a wood heated tenant house with no TV, same as the owner. Today, conditions in the big house have improved far more than conditions in the tenant house, even if the tenants now have cell phones.
We are automating and offshoring more and more jobs that require modest skills.
What will happen to people who have no more than modest skills and who are capable of no more than that?
Why should they pay more for something that's of no use to them?
==================================
It seems to me that this is the kind of externality that you otherwise claim cannot be priced. Where is the evidence that what is provided is "no use" to them?
The left claims that the guilty party in a conflict is not the one who covets another’s goods but the one who defends his own.
Sure, no argument there. How about someone who accumulates his goods by damaging those of others.
My neighbors claim they are defending their own property, by downzoning mine, preventing be from doing damage to them. They covet my property and seek to control it without the responsibility and expense of owning it. The end result of downzoning is that their property is demonstrably worth more, and mine is demonstrably worth less. The damage they seek to prevent is the same as the damage they have already done.
Who is on the left and who is on the right, in this conflict?
kevin-
"I'd say more democratic overtones."
democracy is one of the most pernicious forms of tyranny.
let's say there are 10 of us in a room.
6 vote to enslave the other 4.
we have 6 free people, and again, 4 vote to enslave 2, then 3 on one, then 2 on one.
80% of the room are now slaves having followed only purely democratic principles.
this is called "tyranny of the majority".
democracy does not provide nor guarantee freedom.
more often, it is useed as an excuse for it's usurpation. remember weimar or venezeula?
rights are what protect your freedom, not democracy. the brilliance of the US system was that it was founded on the inalienable rights of the individual.
it's no coincidence that most of the socialist parties in europe are called "social democrats".
democracy is collectivism.
how else would you describe a system where 51% can vote that the other 49% pay for the entire public burden? (like the US)
kevin-
"How is that fair? How is that proportional? How is that a flat tax?"
i never claimed it was any of those things. you are just arguing with yourself.
my point was that state taxes are even more progressive for the wealthy than federal ones.
"Well, which is it?"
you comment does not make any sense. i have no idea what you are asking. that was not an "either or" list. it was an expression of how false the claims of "social equality" under a european system are. the system does not promote equality, it perpetuates a ruling class.
"I'll reiterate my earlier point. Wealth and power carry responsibility and those with more have more to lose."
and how fortunate for us that we have guys like you who claim to know how to hold them accountable...
and you wonder why we think you are a collectivist...
"Cmon, $9 trillion is a drop in the bucket compared to the problems poverty presents. Of course it didn't solve poverty"...
Maybe you can rationalize grand larceny via extorsive methods and say that isn't much money but the fact remains, it was stolen resources and all it accomplished generating two classes of worthless people:
1) government employed parasites
2) parasites pandered to by the politicos...
"In the US, actual starvation is rare, but it does occur."
Provide a citation please. Do not include instances of intentional withholding of food by another person.
If you can't or won't do that, you are just pulling this out of your ass as is usual with you.
"Yet we can see examples of places were governments do allow their citizens to die of actual starvation."
That is irrelevant to this discussion. We are not discussing the world. This post is about the progressive tax system in the US, and the merits and uses thereof. Please respond to what I wrote about US starvation.
"So, the welfare system in the US is a big failure, yet poor people here are better off than poor people in other countries."
That's correct. It should be obvious even to you that the programs aren't working as planned, and in fact, create counterproductive dis-incentives. I recommended an excellent resource on this subject to Kevin, and I would recommend the same to you. It's Charles Murray's "Losing Ground". Reading it might better inform you on the subject we are discussing, and it's just possible you could write from a more knowledgeable position.
"lets give the capitalist system ALL the credit for that. After all, it is the capitalist system that made the money for all those useless programs possible."
What a drama queen you are! You write like a junior high school girl. Is it that time of the month for you?
Did you read the Jennifer Zeigler article? No? I didn't think so. You would rather spew ignorant comments than actually speak from an informed position after reading a reference someone has provided for you.
"We are automating and offshoring more and more jobs that require modest skills.
What's your point?
"What will happen to people who have no more than modest skills and who are capable of no more than that?"
You will have to ask them. Perhaps you could hire some of them to work on your farm by getting rid of some productivity enhancers like tractors.
"Who is on the left and who is on the right, in this conflict?"
Unless there is more to this story than what you are relating, that would change a readers view of it, what has happened to you is clearly wrong, and you should be compensated. No one has ever argued differently.
"It seems to me that this is the kind of externality that you otherwise claim cannot be priced. Where is the evidence that what is provided is "no use" to them?"
Remind yourself, first of all, that all value is relative. Think about it until you understand it completely.
The fact that wealthy people are willing to pay for gated communities, expensive alarm systems, and private security, should tell you that they don't consider the protection provided by taxpayers to be adequate. They also send their children to expensive private schools for the same reason. As taxpayers, they are, in both cases, paying for something they aren't using. Why is that so hard for you?
If you found your local mail service to be inadequate for your needs, you might pay for a PO box or private mailbox, or even an entirely different delivery service. You would continue to pay for a service you didn't use.
You would object if you were asked to pay a higher percentage of your income for local mail service just because as a wealthy person, you could better afford it than your poorer neighbors.
The foregoing requires that you understand that the USPS is partly subsidized by you as a taxpayer.
"My neighbors claim they are defending their own property, by downzoning mine, preventing be from doing damage to them"...
Somehow I don't find that shocking...
"They covet my property and seek to control it without the responsibility and expense of owning it"...
Is that what's really happening or are they attempting to protect their property and investments by making sure your actions don't impact their continued ownership?
"The end result of downzoning is that their property is demonstrably worth more, and mine is demonstrably worth less"...
So if they're downzoning efforts were based on demonstrably false premises then it shouldn't be to much of a problem getting your property rezoned properly, right?
"Who is on the left and who is on the right, in this conflict?"...
From where I sit, you're the leftist...
"Who is on the left and who is on the right, in this conflict?"
Unless there is more to this story than what you are relating, that would change a readers view of it, what has happened to you is clearly wrong, and you should be compensated. No one has ever argued differently.
"It seems to me that this is the kind of externality that you otherwise claim cannot be priced. Where is the evidence that what is provided is "no use" to them?"
Remind yourself, first of all, that all value is relative. Think about it until you understand it completely.
The fact that wealthy people are willing to pay for gated communities, expensive alarm systems, and private security, should tell you that they don't consider the protection provided by taxpayers to be adequate. They also send their children to expensive private schools for the same reason. As taxpayers, they are, in both cases, paying for something they aren't using. Why is that so hard for you?
If you found your local mail service to be inadequate for your needs, you might pay for a PO box or private mailbox, or even an entirely different delivery service. You would continue to pay for a service you didn't use.
You would object if you were asked to pay a higher percentage of your income for local mail service just because as a wealthy person, you could better afford it than your poorer neighbors.
The foregoing requires that you understand that the USPS is partly subsidized by you as a taxpayer.
Is that what's really happening or are they attempting to protect their property and investments by making sure your actions don't impact their continued ownership?
================================
My operation was here long before any of them. Whjo is impacting whom?
Yes they are not only making sure I do not impact their (new) property, bay making sure I never have any (new) property.
But the facts are that they are actually enhancing the value of their property, at my expense.
They are not shy about advertising this. The end result is that I no longer have valuable opprotunities that I once had. Loss of those opportunities resulted in substantil loss in value to my property, and a relatively minor gain in the value of theirs.
I am held to a higher standard of behavior then they are, at substantial cost to me.
I agree that what you suggest is possible in some cases. I don't believe this is one of them, and the reason is published statement made by them.
One of them said in so many words: I admit it, my goal is to slam the door behind me.
Any time you have a commodity with no price on it, it gets over used. There is no cost to them of saying no to me. To prevent me from having exactly what they have, nomore, no less.
And by the way, this hasn't happened once, it happened incrementally, six separate times.
That way, at no point are they taking 95% of my value.
So if they're downzoning efforts were based on demonstrably false premises then it shouldn't be to much of a problem getting your property rezoned properly, right?
===============================
You have got to be kidding.
I could, ostensibly sue, but first I have to get to court. In order to get to court, I must first exhaust ALL of my administrative options.
It will cost me over $100,000 just to file the application for the first of those options, and take probably three years.
When it comes to seeking zoning relief, there is next to no due process. And the system here is designed to govern through frustration.
I dont know what you mean by demonstrably false premises for the downzoning. As far as I know, there were none. They had the votes and they did what they wanted.
They did claim a public benefit and published, and continue to publish what the public savings are. But the public benefit does not include the costs to me. By law, they are only allowed to consider the county budget when calculating the savings.
"The end result of downzoning is that their property is demonstrably worth more, and mine is demonstrably worth less"...
So if they're downzoning efforts were based on demonstrably false premises then it shouldn't be to much of a problem getting your property rezoned properly, right?
=================================
You lost me entirely on this one, I don't see the logic.
"What will happen to people who have no more than modest skills and who are capable of no more than that?"
You will have to ask them.
==============================
I'm not asking them, I'm asking you.
I'm not getting rid of my productivty enhancers, and neither is anyone else.
I have an old photo that shows fifteen people working in one of my fields. Now it takes two people.
We displaced 98% of the farm population this way, how many more industries can we do this too?
I may not care about them any more than you apperently do, but I'm curious what happens to shovel pushers when we have robotic shovels.
What a drama queen you are! You write like a junior high school girl. Is it that time of the month for you?
=================================
And your response to my argument is.......?
I think capitalism is great, but I'm not blind to its faults. I think government is FUBAR, but not everything it does is worthless.
I think you take each one, identify the problems and make incremental improvements, and you think there is nothing to be done other than offer lame insults.
I think we can be nore efficient, and more fair,and you think we should throw in the towel, as far as I can tell.
Missed the jennifer Ziegler citation. What article are you referring to?
==============================
... making sure your actions don't impact their continued ownership?
Impact their ownership how? by making my proerty exactly like theirs? By doing exactly the same actions they have already completed?
Is this what you call mutually respecting eachothers property rights?
so more of their earnings could contribute directly to the benefit of others
================================
"Could", being the operative word here.
I don't hire people to benefit them, I hire them to benefit me.
"You lost me entirely on this one, I don't see the logic."
What??
You already answered that one. Why doesn't it make sense now? Move on.
"We displaced 98% of the farm population this way, how many more industries can we do this too?"
So, where are all those unemployed farm workers now? did "we" provide massive retraining and employment assistance programs for them?
Something has happened, as there aren't likely 13 people standing idly by as you run farm machines. Maybe they found better jobs doing something else. Were these the people you meant when you wrote of people starving?
The same thing is happening in manufacturing, and I don't think we anyone needs to worry any more than they did about farm workers earlier.
"I may not care about them any more than you apperently do, but I'm curious what happens to shovel pushers when we have robotic shovels."
There are already robotic shovels, although they aren't fully automatic and require human operators, just as farm machines do. You don't need to wonder what shovel pushers will do, as they have apparently already found other work.
They aren't the ones you see standing around watching heavy equipment work. Those are called supervisors.
"When it comes to seeking zoning relief, there is next to no due process. And the system here is designed to govern through frustration"...
Oh dear! The system is setup to frustrate only the hydra and NOT his neighbors who are picking on him...
"I dont know what you mean by demonstrably false premises for the downzoning. As far as I know, there were none. They had the votes and they did what they wanted"...
Then its painfully obvious you're in over your head as a property owner...
Your neighbors had more votes than you had...
Well imagine that!
"But the public benefit does not include the costs to me"...
According to whom? I have to wonder just how sure you are of your claims...
"You lost me entirely on this one, I don't see the logic"...
Hardly suprising...
"Missed the jennifer Ziegler citation. What article are you referring to?"
The link juandos gave you in reference to $9 trillion in welfare. I had a feeling from your response that you hadn't read it. Too bad. You might have learned something. Instead you just respond without knowing what you are talking about.
You might have learned something. Instead you just respond without knowing what you are talking about.
==================================
One does not follow from the other. I know what I am talking about. I don't need to know what she is talking about in order to meet the conditionthat I know what I am talking about.
The idea that those with high income shouldn't be able to buy a boat, because everyone can't buy a boat, is just silly.
Kevin didn't say that. The wealthy can pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes and STILL buy a boat,or anything else they want. With a much smaller portion of their income as taxes,the poor may not even be able to buy necessities.
You do not win an argument by deliberately mis-stating your opponents position.
Oh dear! The system is setup to frustrate only the hydra and NOT his neighbors who are picking on him...
==================================
Precisely. They do not have to file $100,000 worth of engineering plans to get a downzoning.
As I pointed out, Alberta is about to pass a bill to prevent this kind of assymetricity.
I was not asking, nor would I ask for zoning that resulted in properties any different from what they own.
In the long distant past, before zoning, some of their properties were once part of the farm. Had the rules they installed been in place earlier, the homes they live now would have been prohibited.
Then its painfully obvious you're in over your head as a property owner...
Your neighbors had more votes than you had...
Well imagine that!
=================================
Are you in favor of mob rule, or equal protection of rights under the law?
Are you now suggesting that it is OK for government to take property by force?
All I'm suggesting is that property should be protected equally. I have no problem with them preventing the area being degraded. I do have a problem with them improving their position at my expense.
Their argument is that the county saves $2700 for every home I do not build. Ok. So that is five cents per person per year. But the cost to me is $2700 a month, and I'm part of the county, too.
But, under the law, only the county budget is allowed to be considered. The county gets that savings by borrowing it from me. Fine, you pay me 5% interest on whot you claim (in public) I'm saving you, and I will consider that to be a fair deal.
Their full argument is that farms:
a) pay twice as much in taxes as they rquire in services. (cows don't go to school).
b) support the local economy through supplies and servised they buy,
c) increase the value of surrounding properties.
So, If I'm supplying them with $2 worth of value, (or whatever the enormous value that they acually claim) why aren't they willing to share $1 of it with me? How about 50 cents? 10 cents?
Nope, nada, zip.
Because, as you point out, they are armed thieves,with the government as an intermediary.
But, the whole problem goes away AND everybody is still better off, if property rights are protected equally, instead of asymetrically.
"But the public benefit does not include the costs to me"...
According to whom? I have to wonder just how sure you are of your claims...
=================================
According to THEM actually.
They claim a county savings of $2700 a year. That would not pay the interest on the homes they live in for a month.
By preventing me from having a similar home, they are preventing me from owning an investment that would return me $2700 a month.
Of course, I have to raise the capital and take the risk. But I'm certain enough of my position that I would pay the taxes on that new home AND throw in the $2700 a year they claim to be losing.
Years ago, I could have simply filed a set of building plans, got a permit and start building. But, after the downzoning(s) that same house requires a $100,000 application, and three public hearings.
So, even if I offer to pay them the $2700 they claim they are losing, I'm still out $100,000 before I find out if I'm to be allowed to turn the first shovel.
"The end result of downzoning is that their property is demonstrably worth more, and mine is demonstrably worth less"...
So if they're downzoning efforts were based on demonstrably false premises then it shouldn't be to much of a problem getting your property rezoned properly, right?
=================================
I'm sorry, you have still lost me on that argument. Please explain.
It is a fact that can be reasonably proven that my property is worth less after the downzoning(s) and theirs is worh more.
How do you get from there to the idea that their downzoning efforts were based on false premises?
Given that the same power structure exists, why would I be able to reverse the situation?
There is really only one false premise that I can see. It lies in the claim that by building a house (just like theirs) I will somehow reduce the desireability of their property. OK, fine. But didn't I already bear the same cost when they built their house?
Where is the equal respect for property rights?
I've heard it argued that when I go for a drive in my car, I am creating an externality for other people, in added congestion. But are not they equally causing congestion for me?
I call that a wash, a fair trade, not an externality.
I went to read the jenifer Ziegler article and got as far as this:
"Getting a job as a solution to poverty may seem like common sense. Granted, not every job pays a wage that will catapult a family into the middle class. However, every job provides job experience, and that leads to a better job."
That is not true, and neither is the sentence that follows it, so I stopped reading.
It might be true, it might often be true, but it is not necessarily true. Any of what follows that is built on that premise is necessarily unsupported.
"Unless there is more to this story than what you are relating, that would change a readers view of it, what has happened to you is clearly wrong, and you should be compensated. No one has ever argued differently."
================================
Ron, I apologize.
I missed that statement in the thread. Had I seen it, I would have stopped right there. Your statement is all the point I was trying to make.
Unfortunately, there are people who argue differently. They are the ones that won this battle, for now.
What I don't get is why anyone stands for it. Sooner or later this behavior has to come around and bite them in the ass, but I suppose if you come out ahead for 20 or 30 years, WTF, screw your neghbor.
"You do not win an argument by deliberately mis-stating your opponents position.
Good for you. You have finally gotten one right! That is called a strawman fallacy, and you should recognize it immediately, as it's your normal method of responding.
While Kevin didn't exactly say that, his comment suggested that if someone was rich enough to buy a boat, apparently in his opinion a frivolous purchase at best, then they should have a larger portion of their income taken from them by government than a person of more modest means who cannot afford a boat, and perhaps struggles to buy "necessities", which in his opinion is far more important.
Say! Isn't that your position also? Well, I'll be damned.
It must take some special kind of arrogance to be able to make value judgments for others, as to what is more or less important to them.
Both of you must assume that for some reason, a person who is wealthier or has high income, doesn't deserve it. What you fail to understand is that the person with higher income, is a more productive member of society, and provides more for everyone. To believe that government should take more, means you believe government can make more productive use of the money than the person who earned it.
I think it's really cute that you now have a playmate on this blog. You must get lonely at times.
Post a Comment
<< Home