3 ms·
I think his idea is to measure how much tax income the government has per person, which basically means how much money it can spend on services per person. The
by TorKlingberg 17y ago
I think his idea is to measure how much tax income the government has per person, which basically means how much money it can spend on services per person. The problem is that goverment costs for the same services differ. I imagine a doctor in the U.S. cost more than a doctor in Italy, so 12,478 in Italy can pay for more doctor time than 13,097 in the U.S. His tax level measure is also very sensitive to currency valuations. If the U.S. dollar goes up, then the tax level relative to other countries will appear to go up, even though the economy has not actually changed.
- adnam 17y agoWhat's incredible is that Americans pay all these taxes, but get few of the benefits. The average UK citizen pays $617 more tax, but gets healthcare, and decent public infrastructure (see ASCE's infrastructurereportcard.org). Also, US healthcare eats up 16% of GDP, compared to ~10% in the UK and ~12% in France (source: Economist).
- anamax 17y ago> Also, US healthcare eats up 16% of GDP, compared to ~10% in the UK and ~12% in France (source: Economist). Would you rather live in a country with $1M/person GDP that spends 50% on healthcare or one with $1K/person GDP that spends 5% on healthcare? Feel free to assume equal lifespans. I ask because that difference in healthcare spending is dwarfed by the difference in after-tax income. Also, the US spends a lot of money on things that those other countries don't, specifically obesity and "right before death" spending. The former can't be reduced with healthcare spending and the latter is a choice, albeit one that doesn't significantly affect lifespan. However, changing it is "treating grandma as shovel-ready".