4 ms·

Most of the European problems right now are problems that the US just plain cannot have -- Greece, Spain and Italy running up huge debts because they have the c

by jbooth 15y ago

Most of the European problems right now are problems that the US just plain cannot have -- Greece, Spain and Italy running up huge debts because they have the credibility of the eurozone without any of the responsibility. America's different, we're one country. Those problems aside, we could do a lot worse than modeling europe, way less gas usage, higher health insurance coverage, 2 months of vacation a year. Sounds a lot more stable to me.

marknutter 15y ago
I don't understand how higher health insurance coverage, 2 months of vacation, and less gas usage equates to a healthy economy, or maybe I'm missing something?
- jbooth 15y ago
  Higher/cheaper/universal healthcare and less gas usage definitely lead to a healthier economy. Ever seen the numbers on how much of your car's sticker price paid for health insurance? If we spent less on the health insurance, we'd be more efficient, right? How much money we shipping straight to Saudi Arabia in gas usage? If we could get the same stuff done on less gas, that'd be more efficient, right? The 2 months of vacation is just a bonus.
anamax 15y ago
> Those problems aside, we could do a lot worse than modeling europe, way less gas usage, higher health insurance coverage, 2 months of vacation a year. Sounds a lot more stable to me. And roughly half the gdp/person of the US. The US govt already collects about as much (per person) in taxes as European govts. (It collects significantly more than Canada and, iirc, slightly less than France.) Yet, no one would seriously argue that we get anywhere near the same level of benefit for that spending. As long as the US govt is that inefficient, it's absurd to suggest giving it more money.
- afterburner 15y ago
  You should be comparing government revenue as percentage of GDP. The US collects 30% less than Canada using this measure (about 24% of GDP vs 31% of GDP for Canada). European nations come in at even higher.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Why would he divide by GDP? Just because the US is rich, it therefore requires more money to provide the same service? I believe govt revenues adjusted for PPP is the quantity you are looking for.
- jbooth 15y ago
  We should copy some stuff from their tax code, too. As you said, they're not collecting significantly more than us, they just have a way simpler rate. Netherlands was explained to me as "25% up to 100k, 50% on income over that". That's fair, simple and actually a lower rate for the vast majority of people. Our system is a bloated mess in comparison. Not saying that automatically everything done by Europe is better than everything done in the US.. but mindless rah rah just leads to myopia. Let's steal good ideas where we can.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > We should copy some stuff from their tax code, too. As you said, they're not collecting significantly more than us, they just have a way simpler rate. Actually, I didn't say anything about how taxes are collected. However, I will point out that even when the US had significantly higher rates, the feds never managed to collect more than 22% of GDP in taxes and even those two years were "unstable", in that folks adjusted their behavior. The sustainable maximum appears to be around 21%, and even that isn't possible during a recession. > Netherlands was explained to me as "25% up to 100k, 50% on income over that". That's fair, simple and actually a lower rate for the vast majority of people. No, it's not a lower rate for "the vast majority". It's actually a significantly higher rate for the vast majority. Most employed folks in the US don't pay income taxes. They pay SS, which has very progressive payback, so it's actually a good "investment" for folks who don't pay income taxes. They also pay medicare, but again, their benefits outweigh their costs. So, 25% (up to 100k) would be a huge increase for most Americans. 50% is higher than the current highest marginal rate, so anyone paying it would also see an increase. I don't remember where the 30% bracket kicks in, but if it's less than 100k, maybe there are some folks who'd pay less under your scheme, but they're not anywhere near a majority. > Let's steal good ideas where we can. I agree, but until we "steal" the good ideas related to efficient govt spending, better taxation is a disaster.
white_devil 15y ago
Most of the European problems right now are problems that the US just plain cannot have -- Greece, Spain and Italy running up huge debts because they have the credibility of the eurozone without any of the responsibility. Right, and America hasn't been running up huge debts with the credibility of being the US and having the world's reserve currency?

by jbooth 15y ago

marknutter 15y ago

I don't understand how higher health insurance coverage, 2 months of vacation, and less gas usage equates to a healthy economy, or maybe I'm missing something?

jbooth 15y ago
Higher/cheaper/universal healthcare and less gas usage definitely lead to a healthier economy. Ever seen the numbers on how much of your car's sticker price paid for health insurance? If we spent less on the health insurance, we'd be more efficient, right? How much money we shipping straight to Saudi Arabia in gas usage? If we could get the same stuff done on less gas, that'd be more efficient, right? The 2 months of vacation is just a bonus.

anamax 15y ago

> Those problems aside, we could do a lot worse than modeling europe, way less gas usage, higher health insurance coverage, 2 months of vacation a year. Sounds a lot more stable to me. And roughly half the gdp/person of the US. The US govt already collects about as much (per person) in taxes as European govts. (It collects significantly more than Canada and, iirc, slightly less than France.) Yet, no one would seriously argue that we get anywhere near the same level of benefit for that spending. As long as the US govt is that inefficient, it's absurd to suggest giving it more money.

afterburner 15y ago
You should be comparing government revenue as percentage of GDP. The US collects 30% less than Canada using this measure (about 24% of GDP vs 31% of GDP for Canada). European nations come in at even higher.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Why would he divide by GDP? Just because the US is rich, it therefore requires more money to provide the same service? I believe govt revenues adjusted for PPP is the quantity you are looking for.
jbooth 15y ago
We should copy some stuff from their tax code, too. As you said, they're not collecting significantly more than us, they just have a way simpler rate. Netherlands was explained to me as "25% up to 100k, 50% on income over that". That's fair, simple and actually a lower rate for the vast majority of people. Our system is a bloated mess in comparison. Not saying that automatically everything done by Europe is better than everything done in the US.. but mindless rah rah just leads to myopia. Let's steal good ideas where we can.
- anamax 15y ago
  > We should copy some stuff from their tax code, too. As you said, they're not collecting significantly more than us, they just have a way simpler rate. Actually, I didn't say anything about how taxes are collected. However, I will point out that even when the US had significantly higher rates, the feds never managed to collect more than 22% of GDP in taxes and even those two years were "unstable", in that folks adjusted their behavior. The sustainable maximum appears to be around 21%, and even that isn't possible during a recession. > Netherlands was explained to me as "25% up to 100k, 50% on income over that". That's fair, simple and actually a lower rate for the vast majority of people. No, it's not a lower rate for "the vast majority". It's actually a significantly higher rate for the vast majority. Most employed folks in the US don't pay income taxes. They pay SS, which has very progressive payback, so it's actually a good "investment" for folks who don't pay income taxes. They also pay medicare, but again, their benefits outweigh their costs. So, 25% (up to 100k) would be a huge increase for most Americans. 50% is higher than the current highest marginal rate, so anyone paying it would also see an increase. I don't remember where the 30% bracket kicks in, but if it's less than 100k, maybe there are some folks who'd pay less under your scheme, but they're not anywhere near a majority. > Let's steal good ideas where we can. I agree, but until we "steal" the good ideas related to efficient govt spending, better taxation is a disaster.

white_devil 15y ago

Most of the European problems right now are problems that the US just plain cannot have -- Greece, Spain and Italy running up huge debts because they have the credibility of the eurozone without any of the responsibility. Right, and America hasn't been running up huge debts with the credibility of being the US and having the world's reserve currency?