3 ms·

Wikipedia article oversimplifies labour taxation. It consists mostly of marginal tax rate and doesn't take into account tax breaks, tax-free allowance, etc. If

Wikipedia article oversimplifies labour taxation. It consists mostly of marginal tax rate and doesn't take into account tax breaks, tax-free allowance, etc. If you take that into account the picture is different. I find OECD report on average labour taxation the best comparison, though limited to fewer countries: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/taxing-wages-tax-burden-trends-latest-year.htm http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/taxing-wages-tax-burden-t... Also keep in mind in most developed countries there are major differences between average effective tax rate paid by single earners and family with dependents.

pawadu 10y ago
Another issue is that it doesn't specify what you get back for the money. For example a country with 20% tax and free schools could have lower "effective tax" than a country with 10% tax where you have to pay tuition.
ralfn 10y ago
It's almost impossible to compare any single piece of a tax system in isolation without taking into account the cost of the living, market access and the tax system as a whole. It may be better to look at government spending in proportion to the GDP and ignore how the government actually got this money. Even when the government lends money -- that's just money your grandchildren will have to pay back through taxes (with interest). The gov-spending/GDP ratio should be a better indicator of the 'tax' climate. But even that, could be very misleading. If you need a lot of high educated staff, you would prefer a government that spends that money on free high quality class-free education. If you are an oil company, you might actually prefer that money being spend on a war machine.
- rvern 10y ago
  Of course, Wikipedia also has a list of countries by government spending and tax revenue as percentage of GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_perce....

pawadu 10y ago

Another issue is that it doesn't specify what you get back for the money. For example a country with 20% tax and free schools could have lower "effective tax" than a country with 10% tax where you have to pay tuition.

ralfn 10y ago

It's almost impossible to compare any single piece of a tax system in isolation without taking into account the cost of the living, market access and the tax system as a whole. It may be better to look at government spending in proportion to the GDP and ignore how the government actually got this money. Even when the government lends money -- that's just money your grandchildren will have to pay back through taxes (with interest). The gov-spending/GDP ratio should be a better indicator of the 'tax' climate. But even that, could be very misleading. If you need a lot of high educated staff, you would prefer a government that spends that money on free high quality class-free education. If you are an oil company, you might actually prefer that money being spend on a war machine.

rvern 10y ago
Of course, Wikipedia also has a list of countries by government spending and tax revenue as percentage of GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_perce....