6 ms·

Looks like top tax bracket in Sweden is $90k -- at $90k, CA marginal is 42%. So a delta of 14% -- still probably worth it, especially at lower incomes where stu

Looks like top tax bracket in Sweden is $90k -- at $90k, CA marginal is 42%. So a delta of 14% -- still probably worth it, especially at lower incomes where student loans and health care a higher percentage of earnings.

cmdrfred 10y ago
The question for me is if our government doesn't provide any of those services why aren't we paying half that number?
- brotherjerky 10y ago
  Well, you can look at the numbers here: http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_371px/public/atoms/files/3-4-16bud-policybasics_2.png?itok=fqita01H http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_371px/... Medicare, Medicaid, etc: 25% Social Security: 24% Military: 16% Safety Net Programs: 10% Federal / Veteran Benefits: 8% Looks like some people get services, just not everyone. At the state level, California: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spending_pie_chart http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spendin... Health Care 35% Pensions 18% Education 16% Welfare 9% Protection (?) 7% The US does not seem to get a great return on healthcare spending.
  - iainmerrick 10y ago
    Also, US military spending is truly enormous. There is a big return on that (obviously opinions differ as to whether it's worthwhile...) (Edit for fact-checking: hmm, while the USA's military budget is by far the largest in the world, as a fraction of GDP it's not that extreme. Wikipedia says it's 3.3% of GDP, high compared to the world average of 2.3%, but way behind the likes of Israel, Russia and Saudi Arabia.)
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    So then the question is are our elected officials corrupt or incompetent?
    - Symmetry 10y ago
      The biggest problem is that the electorate doesn't trust the elected officials in this matter. To bring down healthcare costs you need to be able to reject treatments that are much more expensive but only provide slight benefits. Organizations like the NHS in Britain are very good at this. But whenever someone gestures in that direction in the US you have people up in arms about "death panels" and the idea is quickly dropped. I don't know though. Maybe if politicians just came out and said "This proposal will produce 10 extra deaths per year but we'll be saving $50bn so we think it's worth it" then people would be willing to embrace that.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        I don't even think you are talking about more net deaths. Every percentage point you raise taxes or healthcare costs pushes a group of people underwater. A certain percent of people who have bankruptcies will commit suicide/beat their wife to death/yell at their children until they develop mental issues etc. Economic policies have consciences that are diffcult to measure.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Because you have the vital job as an American taxpayer of subsidizing oil companies, drug companies, military contractors, investment banks, and land speculators.

cmdrfred 10y ago

The question for me is if our government doesn't provide any of those services why aren't we paying half that number?

brotherjerky 10y ago
Well, you can look at the numbers here: http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_371px/public/atoms/files/3-4-16bud-policybasics_2.png?itok=fqita01H http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_371px/... Medicare, Medicaid, etc: 25% Social Security: 24% Military: 16% Safety Net Programs: 10% Federal / Veteran Benefits: 8% Looks like some people get services, just not everyone. At the state level, California: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spending_pie_chart http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spendin... Health Care 35% Pensions 18% Education 16% Welfare 9% Protection (?) 7% The US does not seem to get a great return on healthcare spending.
- iainmerrick 10y ago
  Also, US military spending is truly enormous. There is a big return on that (obviously opinions differ as to whether it's worthwhile...) (Edit for fact-checking: hmm, while the USA's military budget is by far the largest in the world, as a fraction of GDP it's not that extreme. Wikipedia says it's 3.3% of GDP, high compared to the world average of 2.3%, but way behind the likes of Israel, Russia and Saudi Arabia.)
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  So then the question is are our elected officials corrupt or incompetent?
  - Symmetry 10y ago
    The biggest problem is that the electorate doesn't trust the elected officials in this matter. To bring down healthcare costs you need to be able to reject treatments that are much more expensive but only provide slight benefits. Organizations like the NHS in Britain are very good at this. But whenever someone gestures in that direction in the US you have people up in arms about "death panels" and the idea is quickly dropped. I don't know though. Maybe if politicians just came out and said "This proposal will produce 10 extra deaths per year but we'll be saving $50bn so we think it's worth it" then people would be willing to embrace that.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      I don't even think you are talking about more net deaths. Every percentage point you raise taxes or healthcare costs pushes a group of people underwater. A certain percent of people who have bankruptcies will commit suicide/beat their wife to death/yell at their children until they develop mental issues etc. Economic policies have consciences that are diffcult to measure.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Because you have the vital job as an American taxpayer of subsidizing oil companies, drug companies, military contractors, investment banks, and land speculators.