9 ms·

It's not insane - it's pretty common in most developed countries. The US is a major outlier.

titanomachy 6y ago
In many developed countries, 42% tax would cover healthcare, a pension you can actually live off of, and fully-paid education for all of your children. Californians get none of those things, and I don't really understand what it is that they get over (e.g.) Washingtonians for the extra ~30% in taxes.
- pm90 6y ago
  They get protection by the US military and promotion of Californian business interests throughout the world through Federal institutions. Not to mention: friction free access to a large labor pool and US domestic market etc. I get your point that the US doesn’t provide as much social services as other developed nations. Almost all these nations depend on US hegemony to not have to spend as much on their military. This is a choice that the US made. There are good arguments for scaling back military spending and increasing social spending without compromising US hegemony though, however those choices may not be politically expedient so here we are.
  - newswasboring 6y ago
    I don't want to address the hegemony point beyond I disagree on the need or even effectiveness of US military. But I would want to point out the curious phrasing and of your first paragraph and what that says about USA way of thinking. All these points are business targeted while all european points are individual targeted.
    - pm90 6y ago
      > But I would want to point out the curious phrasing and of your first paragraph and what that says about USA way of thinking. All these points are business targeted while all european points are individual targeted. I don't think there is anything curious about this way of thinking. And US hegemony plays directly into this! Pre-World Wars, European nations had their colonies and their militaries and the priority of thinking was along similar lines: access to expansive markets, large pools of labor, protection of business interests etc, chiefly through colonies. WW2 changed all of that, reducing European nations to client states (no disrespect) of the US, that funded their reconstruction. Colonialism was no longer allowed, and European nations could not freely pursue foreign markets without competing with US companies, which would always get precedence. With no real way to compete with the US militarily, and with NATO aligning with their immediate geo-political needs anyways, European nations invested heavily on Social Services, rather than blow up their military budgets. This geopolitical equation hasn't changed post WW2 and you have generations of people that consider social services as the primary function of their Government. However, its a fundamental mistake to assume that a Government can provide effective social services without having a strong economy. Strong economies require successful businesses.
      - newswasboring 6y ago
        > However, its a fundamental mistake to assume that a Government can provide effective social services without having a strong economy. Strong economies require successful businesses. Umm... I would say the social services in european countries are pretty successful.
        passerby1 6y ago
        It can depend on what to compare them to (and for what class, which changes a lot in terms on access to commercial clinics, etc.). What countries are you comparing to?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        newswasboring 6y ago
        I can get into the nuances of it, but honestly even on surface level, just the single point that my Health care is not linked with my job gives me infinitely more control over my life.
  - joshuaissac 6y ago
    > They get protection by the US military and promotion of Californian business interests throughout the world through Federal institutions. Not to mention: friction free access to a large labor pool and US domestic market etc. And Washingtonians do not? What you wrote does not address the question that the parent poster asked.
    - pm90 6y ago
      The Washingtonians part was added by the OP after I made my comment. Originally it was a comparison of CA with European states only.
  - sershe 6y ago
    WA residents get all of these things with 0% state tax, and only a bit more in property taxes. What Californians get for the extra taxes (and Washingtonians too, for that matter, for a large fraction of theirs) is a jobs program for incompetents that occasionally achieves something good as an unintended side effect; known as government. I frankly have no idea why US govts on all levels, and from all parties, seem so much more incompetent than many European/Asian ones (I have a pet theory), but they are.
    - pm90 6y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25779342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25779342
- didibus 6y ago
  Are you sure Washington doesn't just take the money from some other tax? Like property tax and business tax? I'm actually curious, is there somewhere you can see the total revenue for a state from the union of all collected taxes and fees?
- dr_dshiv 6y ago
  In the states, tax is obscure but painful -- you feel it when you pay it, like a sales tax not included in the price or a complicated tax form. In Europe, tax is hidden but smooth -- like a VAT built into the cost of everything or a 3-box tax form (in NL)
- jspash 6y ago
  They get to work 50-60 hour weeks. But that's not exclusive to California. Every state has that advantage. /s
- dmode 6y ago
  30% ? The difference is 9% and is probably made up through other taxes. I know Washington has the highest alcohol and cigarette taxes for example
robertlagrant 6y ago
It's not a major outlier if it's common. 100k USD in GBP is 73347.60. In the UK you'd be taxed 30% on that, including national insurance. https://listentotaxman.com/73347.60 https://listentotaxman.com/73347.60
- BorisTheBrave 6y ago
  No, in the UK, your marginal rate at that income would be 42% (40% income + 2% National Insurance).
  - benzoate 6y ago
    +9% if you’re still repaying student loans, which is common until 40s. Student loans operate like a tax in the U.K., taking 9% of your pre-tax income above 15 or 25k directly from your payslip.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I don’t view paying my own individual debt as a tax. I have a percentage of my pay deducted and diverted to my retirement account. That’s not a tax either, even though it’s percentage-based on my pre-tax amount and directly deducted.
      - benzoate 6y ago
        You can opt out of your pension contributions. You can’t opt-out of paying student loans, which is an available option with other debts. Student loan deductions reduce a balance that doesn’t impact your credit score, can’t chase you for repayment (unless you do something stupid like move country and fail to inform them) and doesn’t impact lender decisions. Most people have no hope of repaying their ‘loan’ in their lifetimes and instead expect the loan to be written off after 25 years. U.K. student loans being debt is a technicality, it’s a tax with a countdown timer that might be shorter if you’re baller.
    - ilikeerp 6y ago
      If you hit 100k by the time your 30 you won't be paying it off into your 40's... Tech / consulting etc, not too hard to hit that number.

In many developed countries, 42% tax would cover healthcare, a pension you can actually live off of, and fully-paid education for all of your children. Californians get none of those things, and I don't really understand what it is that they get over (e.g.) Washingtonians for the extra ~30% in taxes.

pm90 6y ago
They get protection by the US military and promotion of Californian business interests throughout the world through Federal institutions. Not to mention: friction free access to a large labor pool and US domestic market etc. I get your point that the US doesn’t provide as much social services as other developed nations. Almost all these nations depend on US hegemony to not have to spend as much on their military. This is a choice that the US made. There are good arguments for scaling back military spending and increasing social spending without compromising US hegemony though, however those choices may not be politically expedient so here we are.
- newswasboring 6y ago
  I don't want to address the hegemony point beyond I disagree on the need or even effectiveness of US military. But I would want to point out the curious phrasing and of your first paragraph and what that says about USA way of thinking. All these points are business targeted while all european points are individual targeted.
  - pm90 6y ago
    > But I would want to point out the curious phrasing and of your first paragraph and what that says about USA way of thinking. All these points are business targeted while all european points are individual targeted. I don't think there is anything curious about this way of thinking. And US hegemony plays directly into this! Pre-World Wars, European nations had their colonies and their militaries and the priority of thinking was along similar lines: access to expansive markets, large pools of labor, protection of business interests etc, chiefly through colonies. WW2 changed all of that, reducing European nations to client states (no disrespect) of the US, that funded their reconstruction. Colonialism was no longer allowed, and European nations could not freely pursue foreign markets without competing with US companies, which would always get precedence. With no real way to compete with the US militarily, and with NATO aligning with their immediate geo-political needs anyways, European nations invested heavily on Social Services, rather than blow up their military budgets. This geopolitical equation hasn't changed post WW2 and you have generations of people that consider social services as the primary function of their Government. However, its a fundamental mistake to assume that a Government can provide effective social services without having a strong economy. Strong economies require successful businesses.
    - newswasboring 6y ago
      > However, its a fundamental mistake to assume that a Government can provide effective social services without having a strong economy. Strong economies require successful businesses. Umm... I would say the social services in european countries are pretty successful.
      - passerby1 6y ago
        It can depend on what to compare them to (and for what class, which changes a lot in terms on access to commercial clinics, etc.). What countries are you comparing to?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        newswasboring 6y ago
        I can get into the nuances of it, but honestly even on surface level, just the single point that my Health care is not linked with my job gives me infinitely more control over my life.
- joshuaissac 6y ago
  > They get protection by the US military and promotion of Californian business interests throughout the world through Federal institutions. Not to mention: friction free access to a large labor pool and US domestic market etc. And Washingtonians do not? What you wrote does not address the question that the parent poster asked.
  - pm90 6y ago
    The Washingtonians part was added by the OP after I made my comment. Originally it was a comparison of CA with European states only.
- sershe 6y ago
  WA residents get all of these things with 0% state tax, and only a bit more in property taxes. What Californians get for the extra taxes (and Washingtonians too, for that matter, for a large fraction of theirs) is a jobs program for incompetents that occasionally achieves something good as an unintended side effect; known as government. I frankly have no idea why US govts on all levels, and from all parties, seem so much more incompetent than many European/Asian ones (I have a pet theory), but they are.
  - pm90 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25779342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25779342
didibus 6y ago
Are you sure Washington doesn't just take the money from some other tax? Like property tax and business tax? I'm actually curious, is there somewhere you can see the total revenue for a state from the union of all collected taxes and fees?
dr_dshiv 6y ago
In the states, tax is obscure but painful -- you feel it when you pay it, like a sales tax not included in the price or a complicated tax form. In Europe, tax is hidden but smooth -- like a VAT built into the cost of everything or a 3-box tax form (in NL)
jspash 6y ago
They get to work 50-60 hour weeks. But that's not exclusive to California. Every state has that advantage. /s
dmode 6y ago
30% ? The difference is 9% and is probably made up through other taxes. I know Washington has the highest alcohol and cigarette taxes for example

robertlagrant 6y ago

It's not a major outlier if it's common. 100k USD in GBP is 73347.60. In the UK you'd be taxed 30% on that, including national insurance. https://listentotaxman.com/73347.60 https://listentotaxman.com/73347.60

BorisTheBrave 6y ago
No, in the UK, your marginal rate at that income would be 42% (40% income + 2% National Insurance).
- benzoate 6y ago
  +9% if you’re still repaying student loans, which is common until 40s. Student loans operate like a tax in the U.K., taking 9% of your pre-tax income above 15 or 25k directly from your payslip.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I don’t view paying my own individual debt as a tax. I have a percentage of my pay deducted and diverted to my retirement account. That’s not a tax either, even though it’s percentage-based on my pre-tax amount and directly deducted.
    - benzoate 6y ago
      You can opt out of your pension contributions. You can’t opt-out of paying student loans, which is an available option with other debts. Student loan deductions reduce a balance that doesn’t impact your credit score, can’t chase you for repayment (unless you do something stupid like move country and fail to inform them) and doesn’t impact lender decisions. Most people have no hope of repaying their ‘loan’ in their lifetimes and instead expect the loan to be written off after 25 years. U.K. student loans being debt is a technicality, it’s a tax with a countdown timer that might be shorter if you’re baller.
  - ilikeerp 6y ago
    If you hit 100k by the time your 30 you won't be paying it off into your 40's... Tech / consulting etc, not too hard to hit that number.